Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Allegations of discrimination in ArWiki

U4C decision

Latest comment: 12 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Barkeep49, @Ghilt, @Civvì @Ibrahim.ID ,@Luke081515, While the case has been closed, I believe key concerns were dismissed without proper discussion, no evidence was provided to justify the claims made in the essay, and concerns about discrimination were dismissed without discussion. The lack of engagement with the arguments presented raises serious questions about the fairness of this process. This issue does not end here, and I will be exploring other avenues to ensure these concerns are properly addressed. -- 105.111.25.176 11:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Plus, the admin himself explicitly linked his essay’s claims to the Wikipedia Zero abuse and I quote "As far as I remember, during that period there was Wikipedia zero abuse (For exampled T167915), which was one of several reasons that led to the complete shutdown of the service in all countries, including Algeria and Morocco. (For more please read Archive:Wikipedia Zero). Therefore, most of the vandalism/abuse at that time came from these countries specifically, and any old user who lived during that time in Wikimedia projects (here specifically the Arabic Wikipedia) can confirm this point. I also remember that in the same period, we blocked thousands of IP ranges from Morocco, with the agreement of the Arabic Wikipedia community and the checkusers at that time. " end of quote, stating that ‘most of the vandalism/abuse at that time came from these countries specifically’ and that thousands of Moroccan IP ranges were blocked. Yet, there is no official Wikimedia statement confirming that Morocco and Algeria were responsible for the shutdown of Wikipedia Zero. This is a clear attempt to retroactively justify a nationality-based generalization. Given this, how can U4C justify that his essay—claiming 'most of these accounts state they are from Morocco or Algeria'—is not a violation of UCoC? The essay is clearly reinforcing harmful stereotypes based on unverified claims, and the admin's own words prove intent behind it. If this is not a violation, does that mean it would also be acceptable to publicly state that ‘most vandalism accounts claim to be from other specific countries’ without solid evidence? -- 41.107.106.205 03:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
And please, do explain—how is (T167915) linked to Algerians? There is absolutely no evidence (gerrit number:363264). Even if there were, you simply cannot generalize. If assumptions and vague memories are all it takes to justify broad accusations, then what stops anyone from doing the same to any other group? Prejudice disguised as documentation is still prejudice. It’s unjustifiable. --41.107.106.205 04:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ghilt, please explain why you agree that the essay is not discrimination and generalization when I pointed out that IP spoofing is a real thing. You then contradicted yourself by saying it's about patterns "regardless of where they actually come from." If that's the case, how does a pattern determine someone's nationality? Can you clarify? And I quote from your reply: "and spoofing doesn't change that. Because the habits are editing patterns used to recognise LTA users - regardless of where they actually come from.". I acknowledge that CheckUser tools are helpful, but using them as proof to generalize and discriminate is not only unreliable but also undermines the very purpose and integrity of these tools. Their goal is to identify abusive behavior on an individual basis, not to fuel broad, unfounded assumptions about nationalities. -- 41.107.106.205 04:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To @Ibrahim.ID, I quote your reply:
As a native Arabic speaker, I have read what is written on the page and the phrases may be tricky and may be interpreted from different angles, but certainly whoever wrote the page had clear good intentions and was saying (users from a specific country for example) not targeting or discrimination, especially since he cites facts and technical evidences and I don't see anything bad in that. the page was written in 2017, and over the years no one from the residents of these countries has complained about it and the complaint was raised, the other user (who open the discussion) consider it a phrase that may be misunderstood and was not discussed as discrimination and this is clear from the context of the discussion that was raised. Also, I do not know what the connection or relationship of this complaint is to what happened to the user? No one persecuted him because of this case as he claims, his original account was not banned and he is the one who chose (right to vanish), the case doesn't have any evidence or facts to support his words and is just allegations.
If the phrases "may be tricky and may be interpreted from different angles," then you are already admitting that they can be seen as discriminatory. Intent does not erase impact. The wording itself links nationality to misconduct, which is exactly the problem.

The fact that no one complained earlier does not mean there was no issue—it could just mean they didn’t have the chance, the knowledge, or the platform to raise it. Silence is not approval.

As for my case, my account was globally locked because I requested to vanish due to the racism and unjust treatment I faced. Trying to twist that as if it proves there was no wrongdoing is misleading at best. My question remains: why are you justifying generalization and discrimination instead of addressing the core issue?
Also, how can you not see that he explicitly linked these nationalities to Wikipedia Zero and Commons incidents? How is that not generalization?

Statement by Mr. Alaa (علاء) (machine translation)

Hi Mohammed Qays , are there any recent examples of spam accounts in the sense mentioned in the thought "The owners of these accounts are interested in sending random messages, especially dating messages, to other accounts (and sometimes to themselves), they are interested in sending badges in a clear random manner, messaging many users with the same messages, and they are very interested in decorating their user page, and these accounts often have eye-catching names, and most of them claim to be either twelve or fifteen years old"? Because this thought was based on accounts from "Morocco or Algeria" and this is clear from the "Quick Information" and "Examples" sections. Also, do you know why these accounts are from Morocco or Algeria? Have you ever heard about the reason for the Wiki Zero service being down in Morocco ? Or how did Moroccan/Algerian accounts exploit Wikimedia Commons (and raising fair use on wiki projects) to transfer files, send movies, etc.? The point is that this thought was written at a specific time and refers to a specific type of accounts that were dense in the Arabic Wikipedia at that time, and upon which the definition of "absurd account" was built. Therefore, to make any change to this thought, the meaning of absurd account must be redefined, with what is mentioned on this page being transferred to another name to clarify an important historical stage that Wikimedia projects suffered from, specifically the Arabic Wikipedia between 2016-2020, and the most involved against these accounts were colleagues Basem and Faisal . My regards -- Alaa Rasalni 18:07, October 1, 2024 (UTC)

And I understand that maybe, being from the same community as him, you see his intent differently than others do. But that doesn't change how the wording comes across to those affected. We are not asking for the impossible. --41.107.106.205 04:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

the Response:

the country where accounts with long term abuse claim to come from is part of a pattern. That is a very different thing than nationality.
IP spoofing is an unsupported claim of yours.
We should not discuss the general sense and usefulness of checkuser, because this is the wrong place to modify the process.

Ghilt (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

First, Once the committee issues a decision, the case is over. and the collective decision must be respected. We are not obligated to give any additional comments, explanations or feedback. Also, no party to any case has the right to request additional discussion because this may represent influence or pressure on the committee or an attempt to change its opinion and this is not permissible. Petitions have rules according to the charter and must be linked to the presence of new evidences.

You sent your complaint in 21 Dec 2024 (Ticket #2025012010002251) and we read it before, then you took enough time to explain your case here, and there was enough time for others to respond and discuss. Your entire case is based on your personal interpretation in which you assume bad faith (discrimination and racism), while the phrase seems normal especially since the admin has no personal feud or hostility with these countries, no actions against them, and there is no evidence that assumes bad faith. This is a serious accusation not a simple accusation and there must be strong evidence, and you didn't do that.

Bringing up quotes or parts of the discussions is not a reliable evidence because it may differ from one person to another, and the committee's decisions are not based on personal judgment but must be based on records, facts and evidence. Your assumption that we made the decision without sufficient time is incorrect and falls into the area of (questioning the integrity of the committee) and this is completely unacceptable.

I hope you consider this as my response and my colleague's response (Ghilt) as a final response and this discussion will be closed.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.