Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/ar/شكوى

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
جودت (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) Filer (no diff required)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515


Description of the problem - (جودت)

The Arabic Wikipedia is under the control of administrators. These users in the Arabic Wikipedia have higher rights. One of the problems I face is that I cannot edit a Wikipedia page unless I open a discussion and the participants in the discussion agree to my edit. However, the administrator is not like that. He can easily edit these pages, and woe to you if he objects to their actions, as they are chosen users! He once I objected to an edit and I retracted his edit and sent a message on his talk page and he responded threatening to ban me if I retracted it again! If I did something similar and edited a page according to my mood without discussion, I would receive a warning and sometimes a ban. The most annoying thing is that they justify their actions by saying that they are obvious, even though some may not see it as such. I want justice in the Arabic Wikipedia, and for users there to be equal to administrators. The administrator’s duties should be to implement his actions if the community agrees to them, and for him to be there only to protect the encyclopedia and not to impose his opinion on the community (he can suggest policies and implement controversial edits only if the community agrees to them). I want to establish fixed policies that the administrator and the regular user follow, and make those policies binding on everyone.

There is a discussion I raised in meta:babel (Link)

One of the problems I had with Wikipedia administrators was a problem between me and User:علاء. I opened a discussion here to make changes to Link, and in the middle of the discussion, despite the lack of consensus, he made this change. After that, I retracted his change and sent him an explanatory message on his discussion page here, but he threatened to ban me, despite the clear violation he committed. The problem was that there was no consensus at the time! At the end of the problem, one of the administrators hastily closed the discussion!(Although there is no complete consensus and agreement) User:Mohanad had said this, and according to him, the administrators' handling of the clash that occurred between User:علاء and me in this discussion was incorrect.

I think the Wikimedia Foundation should intervene to stop this authoritarianism in the Arabic Wikipedia!

Previous attempts at a solution - (جودت)

Suggested solutions - (جودت)

Other feedback

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

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

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@Barkeep49 Is this necessary? I explained the problem in the proplem section جودت (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@جودت the u4C normally finds previous attempts at a solution important and it would be helpful to at least me to understand what your solution is for the issue. And since I'm here: at first look this doesn't appear different from how page protection works on other projects. I see you've edited other projects and so can you explain what you think is different about arwiki? Thanks Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 Hello, the Arabic Wikipedia has policies, but the administrators of the Arabic Wikipedia ignore these policies and act authoritarianly. This is contrary to the fact that the administrator’s job is to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism, protect pages that are exposed to vandalism, and ban users to protect the project. However, in Wikipedia, the administrator has greater capabilities than the user, and what I wrote in the description of the problem is the best evidence of the authoritarianism that exists in the Arabic Wikipedia. I want the Wikimedia Foundation to hold accountable those involved who exercise their authority over the Arabic Wikipedia community in a manner that violates the written policies there, by banning them and forcing them to adhere to the existing policies there, which they routinely violate! جودت (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my understanding: you are seeking to make some changes and others disagree with your changes. On many Wikipedias, and I believe this is true on arwiki, the person making the change can try it, but if people disagree the person seeking a change needs to be the one to start discussions and get agreement (consensus). I have been frustrated at times when I'm the one trying to make changes, and I understand why it's especially daunting (intimidating) when the other person is an admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 See this response from User:Mohanad and this Based on these responses, it appears that administrator User:Mohammed Qays unfairly used his authority to shut down the discussion, and there is still no consensus or agreement on anything specific. جودت (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section only for discussion between U4C members and parties. Comments from other editors go in Other Feedback. / هذا القسم للمناقشة بين أعضاء U4C والأطراف فقط. التعليقات من المحررين الآخرين تذهب في ملاحظات أخرى. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@جودت ببساطة لا يتطلب الموضوع كل هذا يمكنك مناقشة الأمور داخل ويكيبيديا بدل تقديم شكوى هنا، لأن الأمر يخضع لتوافق المجتمع لا لرأيك أو لرأيي وجميعنا لدينا آراء ووجهات نظر، لكن اذا كنت تقصد النقاش الذي وضعت له قالب (بحاجة لخلاصة) فقد أخذ النقاش وقته الكافي وهناك توافق حول الإضافة، وأيضا الزملاء مهند وكريم ناقشوني بهذا الموضوع ووضحت هنا لهم الأسباب، فيمكنك تقديم طلب في الميدان وطلب توافق المجتمع ليمر عبر آلية إقرار السياسات.
صراحة أستغرب من تقديمك شكوى هنا، بالرغم يمكنك مناقشة الأمر داخل مشروع ويكيبيديا العربية، للوصول إلى توافق او حل لإستفساراتك هذه. لكم التحية. Mohammed Qays (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammed Qays لقد قمت بوضع قالب بحاجة لخلاصة لأن النقاش حينها لم يكن متجدد بمعنى آخر لم يكن هناك أفكار جديدة وجميع من هناك في النقاش كانوا متفقين حينها على شيء مختلف تماما ولم تطرح أفكار جديدة كما حدث قبل وضعك للخلاصة لذا الخلاصة مخالفة. جودت (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@جودت لماذا مخالفة على أساس أعتبرتها مخالفة؟ أنا إداري محايد لم أشارك في النقاش، وأيضا النقاش أخذ وقته الكافي!!
على كلاً ما يراه الزملاء هنا هو المفصل في الرد على طلبك، وشكراً لك على الإشارة. تحياتي للزملاء هنا. Mohammed Qays (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammed Qays على أي أساس تضع خلاصة على موضوع فيه جدال؟ أنا ومحمد أحمد عبد الفتاح وأسامة الساعدي لم نبدي أي موافقة صريحة. جودت (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

  • Although I have never had a dispute with the complainant before, But because I am currently Admin on Arabic Wikipedia and for neutrality; I announce my recuse from this case. Thank you.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

  1. I understand why جودت is frustrated but I do not think there are UCoC violations or are otherwise matters that require U4C attention. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Inclined to agree with Barkeep49 here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I didn't find a systematic failure in enforcing the UCoC. I also understand the frustration, administrators do not have greater editorial power, but let's remember that they can take care of applying the guidelines and consensus when required (even if it goes against our personal point of view). However, I believe that, regarding editorial choices, discussions can be opened locally to try to solve the matter. In the end, I take this diff as an example, it doesn't seem to me to be any particular behavior, and surely the case doesn't involve UCoC violations. --Superpes15 (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with Barkeep49, --Ghilt (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my colleagues above. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with Barkeep49 --Civvì (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Barkeep49. Luke081515 20:59, 22 April 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.