Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Abuse of power, collusion with a Global LTA, and suppression of appeal rights on arzwiki

This case is currently pending acceptance. The U4C will decide whether the case is accepted in 2 weeks since the case has been opened.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
-- Aws ^💬 Talk 02:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Maher Asaad Baker ~ HitomiAkane (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	notification
Esperfulmo (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	notification

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. -- Aws ^💬 Talk 02:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

أوس

Description of the problem - (أوس)

This is a formal report to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) regarding a systemic failure to apply policies, blatant leniency with a Globally Locked LTA, and systematic abuse of power on the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (arzwiki). The local administration there not only provides a safe environment for a globally banned vandal but also uses its administrative powers to suppress and intimidate constructive editors who attempt to confront him.

Crucial Background: User targeting and the technical "trap" of userboxes It must be noted that the context began as a dispute over administrative practices; Admin "Raafat" previously blocked an experienced editor (sgh45) for an opinion opposing arzwiki expressed 6 years ago [1]. In the context of this dispute, I placed two userboxes on my personal page to criticize the blocking policy, One states, 'This user opposes Egyptian Wikipedia,' and the other, 'This user cherishes freedom of speech'.. The paradox is that Admin "HitomiAkane" applied full protection to my page under the pretext of protecting it from the vandal, which technically "trapped" these boxes and prevented me from removing them. Later, Admin "Esperfulmo" used these very boxes to justify blocking me on charges of "harassing the project," effectively punishing me for content that another admin technically prevented me from modifying!

First: Blatant leniency with the vandal and providing a safe haven for defamation HitomiAkane (Maher Asaad Baker) The actual and direct cause of the damaged working environment is the administration's normalization of relations with a vandal who has a full category of dozens of disruptive sockpuppets [2]. Admin HitomiAkane communicates and interacts with this vandal quite normally despite full knowledge of his identity and history [3].

This administrative support is clearly evident when looking at how the administration handles unhidden insults and accusations. The vandal directed extremely serious criminal and moral accusations at me by name, claiming I fabricated and published sexual images of girls. The most dangerous transgression is that this public defamation was written on Admin HitomiAkane's own talk page, and it remains present and visible to the public up to this moment without the admin bothering to delete it or punish the perpetrator [4].

When I pinged HitomiAkane asking for intervention to stop this vandal, the admin attacked me instead, describing my attempts to report vandals on meta as "childish behaviors," completely ignoring the defamation located right above his message. He even disastrously stated that using sockpuppets is not a reason for blocking [5], and Here he admits that he is giving the vandal a new chance, acknowledges the existence of insults, and defends him! [6].

This administrative cover emboldened the vandal to terrorize editors, publicly attacking me in discussions with profane words such as (fag*ot, who*e, human scum, honorless, outcast), while the administration stands by as a spectator, leaving these edits visible to everyone [7].

Racial and Regional Discrimination In addition to these insults, the vandal clearly used a racist and regionalist tone in his attack (inciting Egyptians against a Libyan user). Instead of applying the UCoC policies that prohibit national and racial discrimination, the administration turned a blind eye to his inciting rhetoric and colluded with him against me based on my nationality.

(On the margins, to emphasize the extreme danger of this unchecked vandal, he previously created defamatory articles containing my private data and insults directed at my mother [8] and [9], defamed me in articles I created [10], vandalized my personal page [11], and extended his vandalism to the Arabic Wikipedia [12] and he used my personal userboxes "stating this user have atypical depression and This user is visiting a therapist". to mock me as "insane" and "mentally ill", Local admins failed to remove this stigmatization, violating UCoC Section 3.1 regarding harassment based on health conditions.).

Second: Abuse of power and suppressing the right of defense for intimidation (Admin Esperfulmo) In this toxic environment, Admin Esperfulmo executed the vandal's wish and approved his request [13], imposing an arbitrary block on me, completely ignoring my clean and constructive edit history which proves I committed no vandalism [14]. (I request the committee here to review the move logs of my account to verify the falsehood of the admin's claim that I randomly moved pages, proving he did not verify technical evidence and fabricated a justification for the block).

But the biggest procedural violation and blatant breach of the UCoC occurred when I tried to exercise my right to defend myself. When I submitted an appeal to lift the block on his talk page, Esperfulmo deleted it entirely without any response [15]. When I submitted the request again, he deleted it a second time [16], leaving an edit summary that represents the peak of intimidation, writing: "please refer to Meta; your harassing behavior on arz led me partially blocking you. If you continue harassing, you'll be completely blocked;"

The admin considered my mere attempt to appeal and write a grievance through legitimate channels as "harassing behavior," and used his powers as a tool for direct intimidation, threatening to block me completely if I continued demanding my right. This is a deliberate and explicit silencing of the victim to protect the vandal who filed the report. Furthermore, when I asked him for the diff links of the disruptive edits I allegedly made that deserve a 6-month block, he simply ignored my message. [17]

On top of that, when I asked HitomiAkane for justice regarding my block decision, he evaded by claiming that he "does not interfere in the procedures of other admins" [18].

also Immediately after I placed the official U4C notification on the talk pages of the named administrators, Admin Esperfulmo responded by deleting the notifications and upgrading my 6-month block to a Permanent Site-wide Block, [19] This is a blatant act of administrative retaliation and an attempt to suppress my right to file a UCoC complaint, By permanently silencing the complainant for initiating a formal review, the local administration has demonstrated a total collapse of accountability and a direct defiance of the U4C process, I request the committee and Stewards to intervene urgently to address this severe escalation!

Previous attempts at a solution - (أوس)

I have exhausted all attempts at local resolution by presenting the issue at the Village Pump [20], but I encountered nothing but obstinacy and insistence on wrongdoing, making your intervention inevitable. Furthermore, my legitimate attempts to appeal the block on Esperfulmo talk page were suppressed and deleted twice by the blocking administrator [21] and [22].

HitomiAkane ~ Maher_Asaad_Baker

Previous attempts at a solution - HitomiAkane ~ Maher_Asaad_Baker

Esperfulmo

Previous attempts at a solution - Esperfulmo

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 (ToadetteEdit)

Reading this was long, but unfortunately, due to the 500-word limit, I have to keep my statement as concise as possible.

As a background, the filer of this case, Aws (أوس), has had a history of entering into heated disputes with socks on arwiki, leading to warnings from sysops (1, 2) since his fresh start, and was also briefly blocked for breaches in talk page etiquette. The user has since been improving his etiquette in discussions, but I feel that the current events might have pushed him to his previous territories that got him into problems back then.

I want to emphasize that, even though sockpuppetry is not tolerated even in arzwiki, there can be cases where that master can have a second chance, and it did happened, but I feel that the sysops were way ahead of themselves and accepted edits by subsequent socks despite them being locked (good edits are always good, but by Wikipedia practice, even good edits by LTAs get reverted) I couldn't find any unblock for these socks on arzwiki, but given Aws' evidences, it is clear that the master violated the code (racism), but not the sysops in my opinion. From reviewing the sockpuppetry policy at arz:ويكيبيديا:عروسه شراب, it appears that it doesn't mention anything that has to deal with good faith edits by LTAs, which can also be the reason why arzwiki sysops ignore socks, only blocking them if they vandalize or make bad faith edits. Because arzwiki has some unwritten code in policies, it is clear that unilateral admin discretion against the other parties might have gone past boundaries.

I currently feel that more local discussion, especially regarding the administrators' behavior and policy interpretation, should be held for a longer period of time to gain the views of more community members over a period of time, since I feel that this case is premature. U4C is available only after lots of discussions end without solutions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other Feedback from Robert McClenon

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that one of the purposes of the U4C is to deal with and assist communities that are having difficulty in governing themselves effectively. If the Arabic Wikipedia has one open U4C case and three pending requests for cases, I think that that is a sign that the Arabic Wikipedia may be having difficulty governing itself effectively and may need U4C intervention or assistance. I would suggest that U4C open a preliminary case to look into these three pending requests, possibly consolidating them with the existing dispute, to see whether it needs to intervene to assist the Arabic Wikipedia in governing itself.Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

First things first, @Esperfulmo: I assume there are valid reasons for deleting the local notifications? (with spam/phishing as a reason?) We are open to hear them. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm directly mentioned: What was this supposed to be, أوس posting a pasted message to my page and on the page the fellow user Maher Asaad Baker, someone who spent the last few days tagging us everywhere and other uninvolved users? If there was a need to notify the project with something, an internal redirect on the village pump, once, is sufficient. I've never been spammed consistently with notifications as in the last few days, only by him and possibility related unlogged in IPs to stir contreversies. Thanks for your attention. --Esperfulmo (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant edits: [23] - [24] - [25]. --Esperfulmo (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user who vandalized his page is already blocked. I allowed his page to be edited by registered users. I want to remove the block, but I need him to refrain from harassing and tagging everywhere, or editing other people's pages. These, among others, were the reasons I blocked him, based on his actions, not based on anyone's suggestions. A reminder to my fellow admins that they can prevent users from editing specific pages.
I noticed something strange lately that many users, including anonymous editors spontaneously appeared and stirred controversy. That didn't seem like a natural pattern to me. --Esperfulmo (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that my username is now Maher Asaad Baker ^{(was requested to be changed on 14 March)}, all discussions regrading this case by me, was under the old username HitomiAkane.

I will address أوس's claims (which is mostly fake or misleading) so that everyone can understand the truth of what happened in detail:

First, the background: This issue, contrary to what أوس claims, goes back to before the Egyptian Wikipedia, and extends beyond it to social media and emails. The problem is personal and an Edit warring in several projects, including the Arabic Wikipedia, between a user(s), sgh45, أوس (sockpuppets for over 60 accounts, previously blocked in arwiki for using sockpuppets for paid content) 1, and كريم أحمد (blocked user for miss using amidnship) 2, on going case.
The paradox is that Admin "HitomiAkane" applied full protection to my page: Actually أوس asked me for this action 3, after I proctored his user page I notified him, and he thanked me for this 4, so, he knew about it and even requested it at first, and if he had intended to remove the two boxes, he could have simply requested to reduce the protection level from me.
Blatant leniency with the vandal: أوس himself is a sockpuppet and a vandal, and got his second chance, so why is he demanding that no than him get the same chance? In any case, his claim is false; offensive edits towards him and others have already been hidden, like in 5, and some accounts and temporary accounts (IPs) have already been blocked by me, and others by a global administrator. I do not live on Wikipedia 24/7, and I cannot be held accountable or required to do so! just to please a user.
On the other hand, أوس himself wrote multiple insults to the user, describing him as an outcast and his edits as a filth on the mirror, and asked him to bark like a dog 6. So, does he have the right to insult others and express his displeasure when he is subjected to such treatment? I don't say this right, but أوس is not the angel here.
In this long discussion 7, I asked أوس and Sgh45, who took turns requesting the user to be blocked in Meta despite his focusing on constructive participation, Sgh45 told me that he wouldn't stop requesting (titling his requests: sock puppet or vandal which is not the truth according to his words) because he insulted him (some of this outside Wikipedia) and he's jealous for his parents, so even his requests were misleading. At that point, I described the behavior as childish, as no user has the right to use Wikipedia for personal revenge, and by the way, in this discussion, I explained that I don't defend anyone but Sgh45 tried to flip the table (in vain) and even insulted my words, but I toke it easy and didn't used Wikipedia for my personal revenge.
On top of that, when I asked HitomiAkane for justice regarding my block decision: Yes, I don't interfere in any other admin decision. What rule compels me to respond to any user and reverse an admin's decision? A decision like that cost me my adminship in 2020. Despite that, I asked أوس to refer to the same admin, and even blocked an account insulted him also in the same comment 8.

All actions I took regarding this case, which أوس referred to in one way or another, were done calmly and without haste, so as not to make a mistake in judgment. This is my Wiki-behaviour since 2020.

According to Civility, Dispute resolution, No personal attacks, and Harassment policies:

I've been involved in some discussions in an attempt to resolve disputes between quarreling colleagues, asking everyone not to use insults, vandalize others’ personal pages, or harass and provoke ( أوس and Sgh45 used this behavior).
Some accounts and temporary accounts (IPs) have already been blocked.
Many offensive comments have either been deleted or hidden.

According to Assume good faith, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Please do not bite the newcomers, and Edit warring: All colleagues should be advised to remain calm and set aside past personal attacks, in order to preserve the Wikipedia projects.

After all, we are volunteers here, and as administrators, we are not obliged to go along with any user's requests to achieve personal goals such as revenge for the family. Wikipedia is not designed for this purpose, and a true recall of events shows that everything mentioned here is fake or at least was said in a misleading way that makes it seem true. -- Maher Asaad Baker (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the misleading points raised by the administrators, which only further demonstrate their disregard for UCoC principles and international accountability.

1. Regarding Administrative Retaliation (Admin Esperfulmo):

Admin Esperfulmo’s admission that he deleted official U4C notifications by labeling them as "spam" is a grave violation of the UCoC. A formal notice regarding an international investigation is not "spam"; it is a mandatory part of due process. Upgrading my block to a Permanent Site-wide Block immediately after receiving this notification is the textbook definition of Administrative Retaliation (Section 3.2). It is an attempt to silence a complainant and obstruct the Committee’s work.

2. The Technical "Trap" and Page Protection (Admin Maher):

Admin Maher (formerly HitomiAkane) claims I requested page protection. This is a half-truth designed to mislead. I requested protection from the vandal's attacks, not to be locked out of my own page. The admin chose a protection level (Sysop-only) that technically prevented me from removing the userboxes I had placed in protest. Later, Admin Esperfulmo used my inability to edit that content as a pretext to block me for "harassment." This is a clear abuse of technical tools to entrap a user.

3. Weaponizing the Past and the "Clean Start":

The administrators have spent most of their statements focusing on my past (the 60 accounts) Which was 6 years ago btw, This is a classic "Poisoning the Well" tactic. My past was settled through a formal community agreement and a Clean Start (Standard Offer). Bringing up my past history to justify current administrative abuse is a violation of UCoC Section 3.1 (Harassment based on past history). The question here is not what I did years ago, but why the admins are currently colluding with an active, globally locked LTA while silencing a constructive editor in 2026.

4. Double Standards on Harassment and LTA Leniency:

Admin Maher claims he "does not interfere" in other admins' decisions. However, he actively interferes by protecting a globally locked vandal. He describes the LTA's participation as "constructive" despite the LTA directing criminal accusations at me (claiming I fabricate sexual images) and using slurs like (fag*ot, who*e).

Why are these criminal accusations still visible on Maher’s talk page [26] while I am permanently blocked for complaining about them? Describing my pleas for protection as "childish" while normalizing relations with a globally banned harasser [27] proves a total collapse of administrative integrity.

5. Failure of Neutrality and Racial Targeting:

Neither admin addressed the regional and racial incitement used by the LTA to stir local sentiment against me as a Libyan user. By refusing to act against this rhetoric and instead blocking the victim, the administration has effectively endorsed national discrimination within the project.

6. Baseless Accusations of IP and Account Management:

The administrators have accused me of managing anonymous IPs and accounts to stir controversy,, I categorically deny these baseless aspersions, It is well-documented that the globally locked LTA in this case is notorious for using these exact tactics (sockpuppetry and IP rotation) I challenge the administration to stop guessing and instead request an official CheckUser investigation by a Steward, Punishing a user based on "suspicion" of "unnatural patterns" without technical proof is a gross failure of administrative integrity and a violation of the "Assume Good Faith" principle.

Update: To stop these baseless accusations and prove that these IPs are linked to the LTA, I have filed a CheckUser request for all of them: [28], I hope this help.

I would also like to add a Clarification on Tagging, I only restored sockpuppet tags originally placed by Steward علاء that the vandal had removed from his user page, My goal was to maintain proper documentation, Once Admin Hitomi (Maher) told me to stop, I complied immediately and have not repeated the action. [29].

-- Aws ^💬 Talk 13:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

أوس is trying to deceive the public by distorting the facts, and therefore, I will respond to the points he mentioned me in.

2: أوس user page was vandalized by a registered user 9, so I chose a protection level (Sysop-only) and أوس thanked me for this action, why didn't he refuse this action then and thanked me instead? moreover I notified him with this exact action and told him that he can request to decrease the protection level, so he is aware and agree 10, so his claim that this was a technical tools to entrap a user is untrue.
3: I was the only one who talked about your history, so you should have dropped the s from administrators, and when I mentioned this, my goal was (as I said above) to make a point that he took his second chances and refused anyone else to have it! Moreover, accusing the arzwiki admins of colluding with an active, globally locked LTA is unacceptable and refused, and cannot be proven, while I always tried to warn all users in this conflict from insulting each other, and even blocked the vandals' accounts. Again, this accusation is totally refused and untrue. By the way, the last discussion for another chance to أوس was in August 2025, faced rejection from many arwiki users, including Ibrahim.ID 11.
4. I don't claim, I REALLY don't interfere in other admins' decisions, and nothing can force me to do this in your favor!. And again, your accusation of protecting a globally locked vandal is totally refused. Where did I do that? And YES, when a user translates pages to Egyptian and fixes content and points out errors to admins, I will describe it as constructive participation, what else do you want me to describe it to please you?. On the other hand, all that you did is to revert his edits and request blocks, although you said you are against the arzwiki project, which means you don't want to participate in it!
4.1 I archive my discussion page on a regular basis, not according to your wishes, and since you open this discussion, it won't be archived until this issue is resolved, so that everyone can see what he said and what you said.
5. None of the administrators mentioned or acted based on your being a Libyan user. Where did they actually discriminate nationally within the project? Were you banned because you're Libyan? This claim is false claim, unacceptable, and completely untrue. Otherwise, you would have been blocked the moment you put a rejection boxes for the Egyptian Wikipedia project on your user page or for being a sock puppet. And by the way, you didn't mention the multiple insults to the user by you, describing him as an outcast and his edits as filth on the mirror, and asked him to bark like a dog. Again, don't play the victim as if you didn't harass and insult the user 12, did you forget?.
6. Again, you should have dropped the s from administrators, I didn't accused you of creating fake user accounts or logging in as IPs users! Actually, no one said it was you whom created those account to stirred controversy!

I believe I addressed all أوس fake claims. I will leave it now to the community, as it is taking a lot of time trying to explain the explained. Moreover, I can't deal with his attempts to deceive the community, and flip the fact in his favor, and more, I have reached my patience end.

I would like to kindly ask Ibrahim.ID to help translate the mentioned discussions when it is needed and if he has time, as it is all in Egyptian. Thank you all. -- Maher Asaad Baker (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically reject being labeled a "deceiver., The evidence I provided consists of public logs and diffs accessible to the entire community, It is the administrator, not I, who is distorting facts to hide systemic failures.

1. The "Trap" of Page Protection:

I have never denied requesting protection; it was a necessary step against a persistent vandal. However, the issue was never the protection itself, but how it was weaponized. Another administrator labeled me a "harasser" based on userboxes that I was technically prevented from editing due to the protection level chosen by Maher, If those boxes were truly an issue, a simple administrative message or a minor edit by a sysop would have sufficed, Instead, they were used as a pretext for a block after months of presence. This is a clear "technical trap."

2. Overriding Community Decisions on "Clean Starts":

A "second chance" or "Clean Start" is a community and Steward mandate, not a personal administrative whim, The arwiki community explicitly rejected this LTA’s request for a second chance [30] . By unilaterally restoring deleted pages at the vandal's request and validating his presence, Maher is defying the global community's decision. Furthermore, the administrator's attempt to use my past is a classic "poisoning the well" tactic. For the record, users like Ibrahim.ID were actually among those who supported my successful clean start [31], making the administrator’s attempt to use his name to discredit me both ironic and misleading.

3. Direct Collusion and Violation of Administrative Duty:

Admitting that an LTA's edits are "constructive" and claiming that "sockpuppetry is not a reason for a block" is a grave administrative violation, It is the core duty of an administrator to enforce global locks, not to correspond with and protect accounts that the Stewards have already decided to ban, Restoring pages previously deleted by Stewards at the request of a banned vandal is a direct act of collusion that undermines the entire global security framework of Wikimedia.

4. Defense of Personal Honor against Hate Speech:

I admit to responding in anger, and I do not hide it. It was a visceral human reaction to a globally locked harasser who spent hours defaming my mother—calling her a "who*e" in articles I created—and attacking my honor across multiple projects, I had to spend my time cleaning up his filth while the administration stood by, protected him, and eventually blocked me for reacting, The administrator’s continued defense of this individual, while ignoring the gravity of the slurs (fag*ot, who*e) used against me, proves a total lack of neutrality.

Calling my documented claims "fake" while the diffs prove every word is an act of desperation. I request the U4C to focus on the administrator’s admission of validating a locked LTA and the documented retaliation I faced for filing this very case. I will not be intimidated into silence by labels of "deception" when the truth is a matter of public record.

also, For the record and for the transparency of the community and the Committee, could the administrator please provide the specific diffs of the violations I committed that justify a 6-month block? A block of this duration requires substantial evidence of severe disruption, yet no such evidence has been presented?

-- Aws ^💬 Talk 20:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you not use AI to write responses here. It is very difficult to go through. If language is the problem, please feel free to write it in the language you are comfortable with and we will translate it. BRP^ever 13:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

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, --Civvì (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]