Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Arabic Wikipedia admins against the Levantine Arabic Incubator Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is closed.
Parties
Parties Notifications
TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) self
باسم (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [1], [2]
Dr-Taher (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [3], [4]
Freedom's Falcon (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [5], [6]
كريم رائد (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [7] (withdrawn)
Mervat (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [8], [9]
فيصل (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [10], [11]

Description of the problem - (TheJoyfulTentmaker)

A proposal for launching a Wikipedia edition in Levantine Arabic was marked as eligible by the WMF Language Committee in August 2021, and the community was encouraged to find new contributors to the project. The problem is that the majority of Arabic Wikipedia admins oppose this project and abuse their power to censor any mention of interest or invitations for collaboration within the Arabic Wikipedia. They have even gone so far as to modify my user page against my will, with a sarcastic edit summary, where I state that I am a learner of this language. They censor a video with encyclopedic value that shows Levantine Arabic as a serious language, even used in political speeches. They have twice denied my requests from them to provide an edit summary for their removal of this encyclopedic content.

By Freedom's Falcon
  • [12] Attributing hidden agenda and using a threatening tone with three exclamation marks: "In short, stop messing with our language!!!". Although the admin later used a softer tone, saying that everyone is free to express their opinions, they never acknowledged that there was a problem with their tone in the first place. What is more concerning is that this user is one of the board members of the Wikimedians of the Levant User Group, which receives regular funding from the WMF, and the funding agreement explicitly states that it is required to follow the UCoC. (Side note: I believe all languages belong to the entire humanity.)
By باسم (Bassem)
  • [13] Attributing a "hidden agenda, hidden purpose" for the other Wikimedians' arguments, although no such intent was stated.
  • [14] Making my friendly edit invisible, although the Arabic Wikipedia's relevant guideline very clearly limits the usage of this admin right, and considers it abuse
  • [15] Single line comment in a deletion discussion, although the user is an admin; which means their actions can carry disproportionate weight. The local guideline clearly states that it is not voting and the users are required to state full arguments. In spite of this, the admin just votes, giving no justification whatsoever. Ten minutes following this, the discussion gets closed by another admin; leaving no chance for others to share perspectives.
  • [16] Removing information from my user profile in a condescending manner without my consent. The information that is removed is about which languages I'm able to speak. It did not mention any project. The edit summary says: "No promoting the wonderful project :) Here you are speaking Arabic excellently = it means you don’t only speak Shami (Levantine dialect)… but Northern dialect too!"
  • [17], [18] Removing a video that shows how Levantine Arabic is spoken in Turkey, which is the subject of the article and it has encyclopedic value. In spite of the requests, the admin leaves no explanation in the edit summary.
By Dr-Taher
  • [19] Abuse of power. Deleting my user page with no policy-based justification. It included a collaboration invite for a different Wikimedia project, which is no different than Commons, Wiktionary, WikiData, which are very commonly shared across the Arabic Wikipedia. In addition to this, the power to hide revisions is abused, although the Arabic Wikipedia's local policy clearly restricts its usage, as linked above.
By كريم رائد (Karim Ra'ed)
  • [20] Harassing tone used against me, with multiple pointers to the "red template" on my user page, which I believe was unfairly placed. Yes, admins can participate in a deleting discussion, but they need to be extremely cautious to avoid unfairly impacting the discussion. This admin participated with a lot of sarcasm, trying to humiliate both the subject of the BLP article by saying things like "is she notable because she dropped out of elementary school?"; as well as me by sarcastically writing "I did my research and found no sources", with a link to my user page with a red template, with the purpose of winning an argument using an unrelated separate admin action which had been disputed. (Update: I take back this accusation. They responded on the talk page and turns out it was a misunderstanding on my part. I completely misinterpreted their intention and this is unrelated to the rest of my complaint about the Levantine Arabic Wikipedia. I apologize to كريم رائد.)
By Mervat
  • [21] Although it is a LangCom approved Wikimedia Incubator project, admin Mervat kindly tells me not to mention it with a tone that makes me feel I'm not welcome on ArWiki: "Please do not promote your project in this encyclopedia, as long as it is a recognized project, then you have enough space there to work." (This diff wouldn't have been a problem if Mervat had not been a senior Wikimedian and one of the former board members of Wikimedians of the Levant user group.)
By فيصل (Faisal)
  • [22] As an admin, deleting the line from my user profile that I used to express myself, calling it to be a "provocation". Then they threaten to ban me if I continue "promoting" the Levantine Arabic Wikipedia. The translation of my line that they considered provocative and deleted is this: "I am particularly excited about the Levantine Arabic version of Wikipedia , which is currently hosted in the Wikimedia Incubator."

Previous attempts at a solution - (TheJoyfulTentmaker)

Multiple attempts to open dialogue with the corresponding admins.[23], [24], [25] Opening a case on the ArWiki admins noticeboard.[26] - Here is a correct link to the past version of the inquiry that includes the admin responses I received.

clarification: There is no local discussion in ArWiki about his complain, What happened here was just an inquiry not a complaint or discussion, the other attempts was in Meta not in ArWiki --Ibrahim.ID (talk)

[Ar]
مرحبًا، أحتاج إلى مساعدتكم بخصوص صفحة ملفي الشخصي. تم استبدال صفحة ملفي الشخصي بقالب أحمر من قِبَل أحد الإداريين. لكنني أعتقد أنها لم تخالف أي سياسة. كانت الصفحة تتناول اهتمامي الموسوعي، الذي يتعلق ببدء ويكيبيديا جديدة باللهجة العربية الشامية، وقد تم اعتمادها رسميًا من قبل مؤسسة ويكيميديا. إنه مشروع شقيق شرعي. أقدّر مساعدتكم في توضيح سبب اعتبارها مخالفة للإرشادات. إذا كنتم تعتقدون أن هذا كان خطأً، أرجو مساعدتكم في إزالة القالب الأحمر. لا أستطيع القيام بذلك بنفسي، حيث يُذكر أن إزالته يتطلب إجراءً من إداري. (مستخدم:TheJoyfulTentmaker) 22:54، 27 أكتوبر 2024 (ت ع م)

 — Ar


Hi, I need your help with my profile page. My profile page was replaced with a red block by an administrator. However, I believe it did not violate any policy. The page was about my encyclopedic interest, which is starting a new Wikipedia in the Levantine Arabic dialect, and it has been officially approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a legitimate sister project. I would appreciate your help in clarifying why it is considered a violation of the guidelines. If you believe this was a mistake, please help me remove the red block. I cannot do this myself, as it states that removing it requires an administrator's action. (User talk:TheJoyfulTentmaker) 22:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 — Ar

Suggested solutions - (TheJoyfulTentmaker)

Simply having the admins agree not to abuse their power anymore and to respect my reasonable attempts to share interest and invite potential collaborations for this project on Arabic Wikipedia would be enough. Admins acknowledging that what they did was against the UCoC and committing that it won’t be repeated is a sufficient solution to this problem. Also, as clearly explained in the UCoC, when there is a discussion, admins need to be mindful of their seniority and hold back their strong opinions or phrase them delicately as much as possible so that the community can freely discuss ideas without any pressure, and people with diverse perspectives would not be driven away.

Description of the problem - (باسم)

Previous attempts at a solution - (باسم)

Suggested solutions - (باسم)

Description of the problem - (Dr-Taher)

Previous attempts at a solution - (Dr-Taher)

Suggested solutions - (Dr-Taher)

Description of the problem - (Freedom's Falcon)

Previous attempts at a solution - (Freedom's Falcon)

Suggested solutions - (Freedom's Falcon)

Description of the problem - (كريم رائد)

Previous attempts at a solution - (كريم رائد)

Suggested solutions - (كريم رائد)

Description of the problem - (Mervat)

Previous attempts at a solution - (Mervat)

Suggested solutions - (Mervat)

Description of the problem - (فيصل)

Previous attempts at a solution - (فيصل)

Suggested solutions - (فيصل)

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 (Fjmustak)

While I am uninvolved in this complaint, I must weigh in as the name of the Wikimedians of the Levant User Group, of which I am a board member, is being thrown around.

  1. On 2 March 2024, complainant added a section to the annual grant discussion page of our user group titled Levantine_Arabic_Wikipedia. While the comment was not in the appropriate location, I entertained the request and explained to TheJoyfulTentmaker the reasoning our User Group does not think the project they were promoting was viable. When asked to convey the message to the User Group, I offered to bring it up in our following group meeting. In the meeting, the idea of the Levantine Wikipedia was vehemently opposed. I informed the user that our grant request discussion page was not the correct venue for discussing the merits of creating a new language Wikipedia.
  2. On 30 October 2024, complainant yet again added a section to our new annual grant discussion page titled Concerns about this group's UCoC compliance. This time the user made baseless allegations against the User Group (while thankfully no formal complaint against the group was registered). I again indicated to the user that they were commenting in the wrong place and that our User Group does not have the mandate to police users' on-wiki activity.

The user's repeated badgering of the Wikimedians of the Levant User Group that borders on trolling is not appreciated. --Fjmustak (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2024 (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.

@باسم, Dr-Taher, Freedom's Falcon, كريم رائد, Mervat, and فيصل: Peace be with you! Please be so kind to fill in your statements and give us an answer. It is in your best interest to voice your opinion. Thank you --Ghilt (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@باسم, Dr-Taher, Freedom's Falcon, Mervat, and فيصل: functioning notification, --Ghilt (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic translation by Deepl

(Barkeep49 ترجمة ديبلـ ديبلـد لـ) أعتقد أن ويكيبيديا العربية يمكن أن تشكل إجماعًا على "ترويج" المشاريع الحاضنة بشكل عام أو المشاريع الحاضنة العربية بشكل خاص. هل هذا الإجماع موجود؟ إذا لم يكن كذلك، أود أن أفهم أسباب سياسة إجراءات المشرفين هنا. شكرًا، Barkeep49 (A) (تكلم) 15:52, 8 نوفمبر 2024 (التوقيت العالمي المنسق)

تضمين التغريدة، والدكتور طاهر، وصقر الحرية، ورائد كريم، وميرفت، و فيصل: السلام عليكم! أرجو أن تتكرموا بالإدلاء بأقوالكم وإعطائنا إجابة. من مصلحتكم أن تعبروا عن رأيكم. شكرًا لك - غيلت (أ) (تحدث) 14:56, 10 نوفمبر 2024 (التوقيت العالمي المنسق)
@Ibrahim.ID If we read the responses to this inquiry, we see that there are 3 separate admins who endorse the admin action that I would consider abuse of power, if it was not due to a mistake. Moreover, I was told I was going to be banned if I continued "promoting" this project. It is very hard to tell what is considered a promotion and what is not, given that some admins consider simply putting the "I speak some Levantine Arabic" babel box to be a promotion. So, honestly, I believe I ran out of all local options that would not potentially get me banned. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This claim is without evidence. You have not made any discussion or complaint locally to claim that there is a ban or danger, and until this moment you insist on refusing to discuss your issue within the local project, even though I told you so 4 months ago. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibrahim.ID Thank you for helping me at that time. Unfortunately, the pointer you gave was to the Village Pump, and the community might not have access to the edits that were hidden by the admins, to make a healthy discussion possible. Also, I would like to add that this case is not just limited to ArWiki, and actually it started on a meta discussion page of the Wikimedians of the Levant User Group. (A U4C complaint does not need to be confined to a single project, I believe.) It is about a pattern of behavior that I would not expect of parties with that level of seniority. Quoting the UCoC:
"We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them."
So, I kindly ask the U4C to review all the diffs I linked in my description and decide if the given pattern is compatible with the desired behavior. If a language box I put on my user page can simply be removed by an admin and considered "promotion" or "provocation"; if a friendly collaboration invitation can be deleted together with the revision history and be hidden from the community; if members are threatened to be banned for these kind of reasons, how can the community reach a healthy decision about anything without pressure? I believe we are at a point where some outside help is justified and we cannot rely entirely on the local process to determine if this behavior is UCoC-compliant. Some help is also needed so we can ensure to have some diversity within each Wikimedia project, i.e. users with different perspectives could be retained and not driven away. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem could have been solved locally (and also according to the solution you wrote yourself here on this page) and does not need any intervention from U4C, because the local community has the authority to hold accountable, monitor and even dismiss administrators, and reprimand them as you request. You have never filed a complaint, discussed decisions or requested any help from the local community, but you insist on resorting to external parties in an incomprehensible way. Your claim of threats or danger is not justified at all, as you did not try and no one harmed you, so how can you assume that? Ibrahim.ID (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibrahim.ID The noticeboard I raised my concerns about unfair user page template placement is one of the most watched pages of ArWiki and two admins told me I was wrong and I would be banned if I continued. The community was mostly quiet. How can I continue pursuing a solution there? If the majority of ArWiki community quietly agrees with the admin actions, would it make them UCoC compliant? Also, this is not a case limited to ArWiki, as I mentioned. I understand we have a disagreement Ibrahim.ID, and I am curious about other U4C members' opinions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ghilt and Barkeep49: (and the rest of U4C) Thanks again for reviewing the case and providing your opinion. I really appreciate that you are willing to learn more context about the problem, so I would like to share this book with you, which is written by one of our fellow Wikimedians. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could read the story of the Egyptian Wikipedia, starting at page 39. I believe it may provide some more context about all this and may help the U4C come up with the best approach that would encourage a pluralistic solution within projects without hurting their independence. I completely respect your judgment. Thanks so much again for your time. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ghilt, @Barkeep49, @Ibrahim.ID, I really don't see a case here, neither do I see violations to the UCoC. This is why "we" didn't reply. * As admins, we have the right to accept or reject content that doesn't comply with the objective of the Arabic wikipedia, which is to increase, enhance and improve Arabic content in the Arabic language, not in local dialects, and work towards and to support users whose efforts and activities are consistent with this objective. The complainer is trying to track the attention of users who may be interested in his project, but that MUST not be done throught the Arabic Wiki Platform, they can use theur own space, and that's what our replies to their attempts were. Such discussions could lead to non-productive discussions that are none but waste of time and effort. We agree on Ibrahim's replies to the complainer, as an Arabic admin and as a U4C member; he's capable of reflecting our point of view, rather than getting everyone to "defend" their actions. Hope this clarifies the situation. Mervat (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying, Mervat, and I presumed that being the reason. It nonetheless remains uncooperative (and impolite). Every statement serves the purpose of illuminating the situation. I expected better behaviour, especially from admins. --Ghilt (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Ghilt please, don't judge this as "impolite", as I said we did not assume this was a formal complaint, and the lack of response was to avoid getting drawn into unhealthy conversations. Mervat (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Mervat, from what i hear from other users, you seem to be a very nice person and i certainly don't want to "shoot the messenger", as you were the only one of the people the U4C notified from ar.wp that communicated (and i have thanked you for that). But when i look at your arguments i ask myself, how did you not assume this was a formal complaint?
    And the second argument ("avoid getting drawn into unhealthy conversations") is invalid, because you were not asked to discuss with TheJoyfulTentmaker, and you do not need to discuss with TheJoyfulTentmaker here, but you were asked to communicate with us. And you were late to do so, and your colleages didn't communicate on this page at all (which is much worse). Ghilt (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Ghilt:, I thought people with complaints should file a complaint directly to the committee (not on Meta), and after doing the proper assessment, the committee decides if the case should be public or not; this is why we thought it was not an official complaint that is being investigated. Mervat (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We receive requests both publicly and privately. The default procedure according to Charter section 4.2.2.2 is public. --Ghilt (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mervat thanks for your comments. Since we are a new committee I understand how it is confusing. Do you have any suggestions about how we can make it clear we want people to respond? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

  • The rule on canvassing in the Arabic language Wikipedia applies here, and I therefore decline this request for my part. Also, the Levantine Arabic WP is still in the incubator phase. My vote is despite the refusal to communicate by parts of the ar.wp community, that is a major obstacle in finding a solution to a conflict. And the lack of cooperation does not put these users in a good light. --Ghilt (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepl translation

تنطبق هنا القاعدة الخاصة بالاستفتاء في ويكيبيديا اللغة العربية، ولذلك أرفض هذا الطلب من جانبي. كما أن ويكيبيديا اللغة العربية المشرقية لا تزال في مرحلة الحضانة. وأرى أنه على الرغم من رفض التواصل من قبل أجزاء من مجتم{ ar.wp، إلا أن ذلك يشكل عقبة رئيسية في إيجاد حل للنزاع. وعدم التعاون لا يضع هؤلاء المستخدمين في صورة جيدة. --جيلت (أ) (حديث) 18:41, 12 نوفمبر 2024 (التوقيت العالمي المنسق)

  • If the Arabic Wikipedia would like us to not weigh in on these kinds of complaints, they should start a "high level decision making body" (ArbCom) under the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. If arwiki is interested in this and there are ways the U4C can help I hope arwiki will ask us. Otherwise, I want to note that by saying nothing you are relying on U4C members to "get it". In this case I feel like I did and based on that understanding I think that this kind of issue can be left to local consensus. I would hate to know that next time I didn't understand things correctly, there was no attempt to educate me, and we accept a case based on misunderstanding. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ترجمة ديبل

الترجمة بواسطة ديبلإذا كانت ويكيبيديا العربية ترغب في أن لا نتدخل في هذا النوع من الشكاوى، فينبغي أن تبدأ ”هيئة رفيعة المستوى لاتخاذ القرار“ (ArbCom) تحت Guidelines U4C. إذا كانت arwiki مهتمة بهذا الأمر وكانت هناك طرق يمكن أن تساعد بها U4C آمل أن تسألنا arwiki. خلاف ذلك، أريد أن أشير إلى أنه بعدم قولك أي شيء فأنت تعتمد على أعضاء U4C في ”فهم الأمر“. في هذه الحالة أشعر أنني فهمت الأمر وبناءً على هذا الفهم أعتقد أن هذا النوع من القضايا يمكن تركه للإجماع المحلي. أكره أن أعرف في المرة القادمة أنني لم أفهم الأمور بشكل صحيح، ولم تكن هناك محاولة لتثقيفي، ونقبل قضية مبنية على سوء الفهم. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm declining here for the same reasons Ghilt did, as tehre is an existing rule which was violated. I expect the ar.wp community next time that there is a case like this affecting their wiki to discuss it with us, otherwise it will be problem regarding finding a good solution. Luke081515 12:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepl translation

أنا أرفض هنا لنفس الأسباب التي ذكرها غيلت، حيث أن هناك قاعدة موجودة تم انتهاكها. أنا أستثني مجتمع ar.wp في المرة القادمة التي تحدث فيها حالة كهذه تؤثر على الويكي الخاص بهم أن يناقشوها معنا، وإلا ستكون هناك مشكلة فيما يتعلق بإيجاد حل جيد. Luke081515 12:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I decline the request, local rules were violated. I am sorry for the lack of cooperation from the notified people, in my opinion the decision not to communicate is rarely a good one. --Civvì (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decline the request, Because the case is not based on any clear evidences, There was a decision by an admin due to a violation of local policies. If the user objects to the decision, he must first resort to the local community. There are pages dedicated to complaining and he did not do so, which could have solved the problem. It is assumed that there is persecution and threats without evidence, and the logs say that he was not blocked, no pages were protected, and he was not obstructed from contributing. Even what others said to him is just talk that did not result in any harmful actions, so it cannot be assumed that there is harm without it occurring.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't personally believe linking to an Incubator project for a dialect is advertising or canvassing, but that is beyond this request. Projects can form local consensus about what is allowed and what is not on user pages. This case presents a disagreement over those rules, where resolving it through local discussion should be completely fine, and does not present something enforceable through UCoC. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; as discussed above, this does not appear to be a UCOC violation. Further local discussion (or accepting of the current consensus) appears to be the way forward here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2024 (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.