Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

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

< Universal Code of Conduct | Coordinating Committee | Cases
This case is closed.
Parties
Parties Notifications
Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011 Filer
علاء [1] (meta)
فيصل [2] (meta)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 197.205.34.159 08:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.205.34.159 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

Description of the problem - (197.205.34.159)

The issue I am reporting involves systemic racism and harassment on Arabic Wikipedia by certain administrators. Specifically, a discriminatory sentence, «تَضع في صفحاتها أنها من المغرب أو الجزائر» (link:[3]), was written in a Wikipedia namespace page by these admins. This statement, which implies profiling users based on their nationality, violates the principles of neutrality, non-discrimination, and respect outlined in the Universal Code of Conduct.

The page was later moved to a specific user’s space after intervention in the discussion page (link:[4]), but this does not absolve the administrators of accountability, as such language has no place on Wikipedia. Attempts to resolve this locally have been unsuccessful due to the administrators forming an alliance to shield each other from consequences, even against other Arabic Wikipedia admins.

My attempts to address this issue resulted in persistent harassment, accusations of sockpuppetry (link:[5]), and a toxic editing environment, which ultimately led to a serious mental health breakdown. I was forced to leave Wikipedia, locking my account through a Request to Vanish, as I could no longer participate fairly or safely.

This matter has been brought to the Trust & Safety team, Legal team, and other avenues, but all have redirected me, making it clear that local resolution is not possible due to the systemic bias on Arabic Wikipedia.

Universal Code of Conduct: "Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs"

Previous attempts at a solution - (197.205.34.159)

1. Trust & Safety team: Referred me to the Legal team.
2. Legal team: Redirected me back to the Trust & Safety team.
3. Local resolution: Attempts to escalate the issue locally were blocked by the administrators involved, who formed an alliance to dismiss my complaints and shield each other from accountability.
Despite exhausting all these channels, the issue remains unresolved.

Suggested solutions - (197.205.34.159)

1. Investigate the systemic bias among Arabic Wikipedia administrators and the misuse of their authority.
2. Hold the administrators accountable for violating the Universal Code of Conduct.
3. Remove discriminatory content (even on user namespace) and ensure that similar behavior is prevented in the future.
4. Implement measures to make Arabic Wikipedia a safer and fairer environment for editors from diverse backgrounds.

علاء (Alaa)

Thanks for bringing this case to my attention on my talk page. I will mention three points here (It is noteworthy that the topic is relatively old and dates back to the period between 2016 - 2020):

  • حساب عبثي (English: Manipulative account, romanized: Ḥisāb ʻbthy): this page has been created on 30 April 2018, and has been edited and developed over the years by a number of active arwiki editors (including sysops). It is an "Essay" (which by definition contains advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints). 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.
The page mentions in its introduction: "Manipulative accounts are a phenomenon that began on Arabic Wikipedia in early 2015, where the owners of these accounts are interested in sending random messages, especially acquaintance messages, to other accounts (and sometimes to themselves), as well as sending badges in a clear random manner, messaging many users with the same messages, and paying great attention to decorating their user page. These accounts often have eye-catching names, and most of them claim to be either twelve or fifteen years old". Then the page talks about these accounts and quick information about them and how to distinguish them (so that sysops and anti-vandalism users can easily identify them), then give clear examples of the most prominent of these accounts (Sockpuppeteer).
Among the points (about 8 points around "how to distinguish them"), it is stated verbatim that “most of these accounts state on their pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria, and these accounts behave in a suspicious manner, whether in the type of articles they work on or the questions they ask, as any experienced user can notice these accounts quickly and at first glance."
This page has been used for many years and there has been no objection or discussion about it. On the contrary, the community uses it in user CU requests, block requests, discussions about users in sysops' noticeboard, and even through users warning on their discussion pages. Which but it under "silence and consensus".
The user put a comment around the same point on 2 October 2024. His comment was very strange, and included many strange expressions for me. Especially, it appears that the user's comment is related to the undo of edits on the "Common Sense Wikipedia page", because edits done without community discussion.
Full comment (machine translation)

My brother @Alaa, honestly this is shocking. I will not go into many details about the explicit insult you directed at the people of Morocco and Algeria or any people, this amendment in itself is bad.
and unacceptable. In the end, this insult will hurt innocent people and active contributors, especially from Morocco and Algeria (like me), while it will not affect the deliberate vandalizers, who often do not have a sense of conscience. However, generalizing these violations to entire peoples is considered a very dangerous matter, regardless of the accuracy of the statistics you provided, which are difficult to verify, especially since the sources you relied on are not reliable (such as WordPress blogs or inactive links).
What made me enter this discussion (unwillingly), even though I wanted to avoid it completely, is a state of astonishment and shock at what I read, where every idea and expectation was shattered to pieces, leaving me reeling in an endless maze of astonishment and chaos. How can this behavior be described compared to my edits at the "common sense" page? How can this behavior be justified without a warning of block, while I was personally accused?
I previously felt some remorse when I accused administrators of double standards, but now, I find that this statement is not just a feeling, but an undeniable fact.
I will leave this minor intervention, and leave the discussion to brother @Nehaoua, brother @Abduljalil 09, brother @Mohamed Belgazem, sister @Fatima Zahraa, and other users from the countries concerned in particular, and to all the distinguished users who I hope will approach the topic with a neutral and objective judgment.
I hope everyone will be open to discussing objectively, and I hope that colleagues will reconsider this amendment in a way that reflects respect for everyone. Regards.

My replay to the user was clear, that I really didn't have enough time to engage in the discussion, and to discuss in an understandable manner without the need for long incomprehensible phrases, and that they can send on my talk page "to help find a way out of these incomprehensible matters". Then I explained that "to cut the matter short" I would move the page from Wikipedia namespace to user namespace, and I added a historical template (like {{Historical}}) to the page (considering that the issue of manipulative accounts of this type in particular has become a rare and historical phenomenon). The user then thanked me, saying "Thank you for your decision to return the page to your user namespace", and then added some general comments.
Full comment (machine translation)

Brother @Alaa,
Thank you for your decision to return the page to your user namespace. However, I would like to address some points in your last response.
First, I understand that this thought may be important to those who lived during that period, but it is necessary to consider the impact of that, especially when generalizing to entire groups of people. Since Wikipedia seeks to be an inclusive and respectful platform for everyone, avoiding any form of bias is of utmost importance. My goal was never to question the core message, but rather to draw attention to the unintended consequences that may arise from discrimination between certain nationalities.
Second, I understand that my previous message may have seemed exaggerated to you, but my intention was to highlight the danger of generalizations, which may alienate innocent users who contribute to this matter from these areas. I trust that you, as a respected member of this community, share the same values ​​regarding fairness and impartiality.
I also believe that it is time to seriously resolve all the current conflicts in the Arabic Wikipedia, and for all administrators who are under pressure or have bad days to take some time off from the great work and efforts you are making and to calm things down, so that we can move forward to build trust again. I am certain that a community like ours in Wikipedia is undoubtedly able to overcome these issues, and find better solutions to make this place respectful and enjoyable, instead of becoming a repulsive and stressful place due to these conflicts and loss of trust.
I sincerely hope that we can all continue to work in a cooperative spirit, where concerns are addressed respectfully, even if there is a difference of opinion, as this is very normal.
I may visit your discussion page, Doctor, perhaps you can really help me with that :)
Best regards.

The discussion was over after that, and all of this happened in less than 48 hours. So I don't know why we came back to the same point after almost three months and made a U4C case. Especially since I was clearly responsive, and didn't show any kind of "stubbornness". Also, no extended community discussion was opened. I have a few additional comments:

  • I didn't block the user at any time, and they had been blocked three times on the Arabic Wikipedia (or twice; because one of them was a re-block), and all happened in July and August 2024. The above discussion took place in October 2024, and is therefore not related to any block, contrary to what the user claims on "Attempts to escalate the issue locally were blocked by the administrators involved, who formed an alliance to dismiss my complaints and shield each other from accountability".
  • The user had received several warnings on his talk page (Archive 1, 2 and 3) about different discussions, all of which revolve around "Do not disrupt the project to make a point". These warnings are from several different users.
  • Regarding Cipher Nox account, the user above claims to have used it to "address this issue" but the account faced "persistent harassment, accusations of sockpuppetry". This is not true. You can see Cipher Nox contributions, there is no edit(s) from the user on the above topic or any similar point, but rather normal edits to articles, and they didn't even receive any warning on his discussion page. The account was blocked (by a checkuser) for being a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user, which is a type of "policy manipulation" according to the Arabic Wikipedia checkuser policy.
  • In response to the point that "I was forced to leave Wikipedia, locking my account through a Request to Vanish, as I could no longer participate fairly or safely". Also, this is not true, as Cipher Nox created in September 2024, at the same time they was contributing from the other account (SilverBullet X). In 31 October 2024, the last account renamed to Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011, then they completed the contribution from the other account since November 2024. Therefore, they was using two accounts at the same time on the Arabic Wikipedia (specifically in September 2024).
  • Finally, it is worth noting that the user had been blocked twice on the English Wikipedia for reasons similar to those on the Arabic Wikipedia, which according to the log include: disruptive editing and personal attacks.

In general, I finally confirm that there was no community discussion about the above topic, and what happened was only on the discussion page. Therefore this case is "inappropriate", because according to Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases that "before submitting a public request, please consider if all other locally existing methods of reporting of the violation have been tried", and most of the above claims are also incorrect (or mention the truth in an incomplete way), while trying to change the subject and mix things up.

--Alaa :)..! 20:22, 20 January 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 (TheJoyfulTentmaker)

I consider myself a "guest" member of the Arabic Wikipedia Community and would like to briefly share my perspective. Before I begin, I want to thank all the admins of the project and hope my feedback will be received as constructive. This feedback does not imply any lack of appreciation for their efforts toward improving the encyclopedia.

If this were a complaint about the English Wikipedia or the Turkish Wikipedia—two projects I am more familiar with—I would fully support some of the U4C members' emphasis on the importance of the exact wording of the alleged discriminatory statement. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the Arabic Wikipedia. On multiple occasions, I have observed that guidelines and policies are arbitrarily interpreted by the admins, often beyond any plausible variation of how they are written. In other words, unfortunately, I am concerned that on the Arabic Wikipedia, if there is any chance something can be misinterpreted, it is very likely to be misinterpreted at some point, and the exact wording does not matter at all.

Regarding the present concern about bias against Morocco and Algeria, I am not claiming that such misinterpretation will harm well-established community members from these countries. However, I find it highly likely that a new contributor to the project could be unfairly banned or blocked for making bold edits if they are from Morocco or Algeria, as opposed to another country, due to this informational page—even if it is not an official policy. For this reason, I believe there are fair points in this case request and the concerns about discrimination.

Additionally, here, I have noticed discrimination based on the complainant's language proficiency. For people from Morocco, for instance, typically Moroccan Arabic is their mother tongue, and Modern Standard Arabic is learned later in life, at school. It is completely natural that some Moroccan words might slip into their language. However, scolding or reprimanding someone—for only using one or two Moroccan words in a discussion on a non-article-space page—is, in my view, unacceptable and inconsistent with the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), which explicitly prohibits any discrimination based on language proficiency.

Thanks again for considering my feedback. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One small addition: Please see the article Microagressions, if possible. I don't claim that any of these allegedly discriminatory actions are done in bad faith (e.g., another admin writes that the ArWiki content needs to fit the Middle Eastern and Arab cultural identity, which inadvertently excludes some Moroccans and Algerians and many other identities), but overall I am confident that these have driven away a significant number of potential community members. Also, unfortunately, there does not exist a healthy environment to discuss these kinds of problems with the local community on ArWiki, because the admins may quickly accuse you of disruptive editing and threaten to ban, as seen in some of the diffs submitted by the complainant. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2025 (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.

41.108.179.54 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

I will keep my comments brief, as the issue at hand is crystal clear.
It is unprecedented in the history of Wikipedia for users with administrative roles to author a discriminatory page targeting entire nations, accusing them of vandalism based on the actions of a few accounts. As someone who worked as a rollbacker and reprogrammed Huggle with multiple functions, I was shocked to find that neither Algerians nor Moroccans were among the top vandals on Arabic Wikipedia. Even if they were, you have no right to generalize. The Universal Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits such actions, and Wikimedia does not grant you the authority to make such baseless and harmful claims.

Regarding your mention of my past blocks: like many others on Wikipedia, I faced challenges, but I took full responsibility, made an apology that was accepted, and the block was lifted. I fail to see how this is relevant to the current matter.

As for your response in the October discussion, when I thanked you, it was out of respect and an effort to de-escalate the situation. My acknowledgment at that time was not an endorsement of the discriminatory content, nor does it absolve its presence in a Wikipedia namespace. The statement in question should never have been on the platform, regardless of where it was later moved.

To be clear: the phrase in question violates the Universal Code of Conduct. It perpetuates discrimination and systemic bias, which have no place in Wikimedia projects. This is the core issue, and it stands irrespective of attempts to divert attention to unrelated topics.

The phrase (and it is still being kept to this day): تضع في صفحاتها أنها من المغرب أو الجزائر (link)
Universal Code of Conduct: "Hate speech in any form or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs."

I defer the decision to the esteemed judgment of the committee. 41.108.179.54 21:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Barkeep49,
    With all due respect, the issue is not merely about mentioning a nationality; it’s about generalizing and associating entire nations with vandalism based on limited incidents or unverifiable data. This creates harmful stereotypes and discriminates against users from those countries, violating the principles of respect and fairness enshrined in the UCoC. The Universal Code of Conduct prohibits any form of discrimination, including linking individuals or groups to negative behavior solely based on their nationality. Such statements go beyond observations—they fuel biases and alienate contributors, which is against Wikimedia’s core values.

    Do you truly believe that having a discriminatory phrase like 'Most of the absurd accounts are from Morocco or Algeria' is acceptable on the surface of Wikipedia? Do you think this aligns with Wikimedia's values and the Universal Code of Conduct? What’s the point of mentioning whether absurd accounts are from Morocco, Algeria, or any country at all? How does this serve the mission of Wikimedia? Such statements perpetuate harmful stereotypes, alienate contributors from these countries, and harm Wikimedia's reputation, making it look biased and unwelcoming. 41.108.179.54 21:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a place where the original language is going to matter to me. It can be OK to describe, for purposes of helping checkusers and anti-vandalism people interpret IPs, patterns among a group of troubling accounts. This includes countries they come from. It is not OK to say that most accounts for particular countries are troubling. This is a subtle but crucial difference. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Barkeep49,
    Thank you for clarifying, but I strongly disagree with this reasoning. The phrase in question—'Most of the absurd accounts are from Morocco or Algeria'—does not reflect a subtle or constructive description to aid checkusers or anti-vandalism efforts. It is a blatant generalization that unfairly targets entire nations rather than focusing on specific, problematic accounts.
    Even if the intention was to help identify patterns, the phrasing is discriminatory and harmful. It does not meet the standards of neutrality and fairness that Wikimedia upholds. Such statements alienate contributors from these countries and create an unwelcoming environment, directly contradicting the Universal Code of Conduct.
    If the goal is truly to assist with checkuser and anti-vandalism work, this could have been communicated privately within appropriate channels, without leaving a harmful generalization publicly visible on Wikipedia. This phrase does not just harm Wikimedia's reputation—it undermines its commitment to inclusivity and respect for all users.
    We are not demanding the impossible. All we ask for is fairness, neutrality, and respect in accordance with Wikimedia's values. Specifically, we ask that the phrase in question be removed, along with any other targeting of specific nations, to align with the spirit of inclusivity that Wikimedia should embody. -- 41.108.179.54 22:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

علاء (Alaa)

Just to emphasize a point I made above regarding the sentence in question:

«مُعظم هذه الحسابات تَضع في صفحاتها أنها من المغرب أو الجزائر»

(English: Most of these accounts state on their user pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria. Romanized: Muʻẓm Hādhihi al-Ḥisābāt taḍʻ fī ṣfḥāthā annahā min al-Maghrib aw al-Jazāʼir)

It is not as the complainant above claims that the sentence "Most of the absurd accounts are from Morocco or Algeria".

The difference is clear, what I mentioned is that these accounts put sentences on users' pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria, or put templates that indicate this point. This is behavioral evidence for this type of account (Manipulative accounts).
Thank you --Alaa :)..! 10:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

41.104.223.88 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

Thank you for your response, but there are some points I’d like to clarify:

1. Statistics and Claims: The idea that only Algerian or Moroccan accounts are the ones engaging in "حساب عبثي" (manipulative account) is not supported by any concrete evidence or statistical data. Where are the numbers that confirm these nations are exclusively linked to such behavior? Is there no mention of Egyptians, Kuwaitis, or other nationalities being involved? The fact is, manipulative accounts exist from various countries, and targeting only Morocco and Algeria does not align with the reality of the situation.

2. Outdated Evidence: You are relying on an incident from 2016, which is now almost 10 years ago. How do you justify using such outdated examples as evidence for current behavior? Are you implying that every "حساب عبثي" today is still tied exclusively to Algerians and Moroccans? I’ve worked as a rollbacker myself, and based on my experience, the results have been surprising, with accounts coming from a variety of nations—not just Algeria and Morocco. The idea of focusing solely on these two nations is not just misleading but also harmful. The reality is, generalized accusations like this serve no purpose other than to foster division, racism, and discrimination, which are completely against Wikimedia's values.

3. Questionable Claims of Nationality: Even if these accounts state on their user pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria, this is merely their claim, and it cannot be treated as factual evidence. In fact, I question why such claims would be considered valid or used to generalize behavior. As someone with a Master's degree in Computer Science, I can tell you that IP addresses and location claims can easily be spoofed, and any evidence based solely on such claims is unreliable. The real issue here is the focus on these nations without any concrete proof to back it up.

4. Removing Harmful Language: Lastly, the phrase "يصف العديد من محرري ويكيبيديا العربية هذه الحسابات بالاستغباء" and any other similar generalizations about these nations must be removed. I am not willing to engage further unless these accusations are removed, as they have no place in Wikimedia according to the Universal Code of Conduct.

5. The Purpose of Mentioning Algeria and Morocco: What exactly does mentioning Algeria and Morocco serve in the context of the community? How does singling out these nations help CheckUsers or other contributors in identifying problematic accounts? The idea that manipulative accounts "stating their countries on their user pages" serves as valid evidence is flawed. Would you also edit the essay to include Egyptians, or any other nation, if such accounts claim to be from there? And what about accounts that don’t state their country at all—do they not deserve the same consideration? This argument simply doesn't hold up, and it’s no excuse for generalizing and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. - - 41.104.223.88 11:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this matter seriously and take action accordingly. -- 41.104.223.88 11:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

41.104.223.88 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

Regarding the accusation of sock puppetry, it is true that I created the account "Cipher Nox" before. I explicitly mentioned my main account on my meta page, and the creation of this account was merely to avoid the stress caused by harassment and discrimination (link, link). I was wrongfully accused of not using Arabic simply because I included one word in dialect, despite the fact that 99% of the paragraph was in Arabic. This is similar to how slang is used in English Wikipedia, and ironically, the very administrator who accused me used dialect in his own career as well. Additionally, I was subjected to threats (link) and the The pursuits everywhere I contributed by the same admin 'فيصل' (link) and ongoing harassment from the same admin, "Faisal," across all my contributions during that period.

The account, although originally used for testing purposes, is still being considered a sock puppet. This is despite the fact that it was never flagged as such until after my main account was locked globally. According to the definition of sock puppetry as "a false online identity used for deceptive purposes," I fail to see what deceptive actions were performed with this account. Furthermore, although Jimmy Wales has stated that "there's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason," I would appreciate clarification on what specific deceptive purposes were involved. -- 41.104.223.88 14:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.205.45.189 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

To this hour, they continue to refuse to remove the phrase, despite clear demands from others, including admins, made three months ago, and I quote:

Statement No. 1 by Mr. Mohammed Qays (machine translation)

Hello @Alaa, please remove “puts in their pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria” because vandalism and vandalism is not linked to one nationality or country, there are a number of vandal accounts from other countries, and if the topic while writing the telegram, there are currently dozens of users from other countries messing and vandalizing the encyclopedia. Since this is a public thread, it would be preferable to remove this one. Mohammed Qays Discuss me 🗣 16:18, October 1, 2024 (ATM)

Statement No. 2 by Mr. Mohammed Qays (machine translation)

Brother @Alaa The topic, even if it is related to a previous event, we do not have to specify one country over another, the number of absurd accounts from the specified countries may be more, but we cannot say that there are no absurd accounts from other countries. A special section could be written for that era within the thread itself. Mohammed Qays 19:57, October 1, 2024 (ATM)

Statement No. 3 by Mr. Kareem Raed (كريم رائد) (machine translation)

I agree to remove the phrase. Karim Raed 21:43 (+2), - October 19:43, 2 October 2024 (ATM)

Statement No. 4 by Mr. Ayoub (أيوب) (machine translation)

Hello everyone, during my short time in the encyclopedia, I looked at dozens of pages, discussion pages and user discussion pages, and I often came across the account of @ Alshima Morocco, I think it is the most famous absurd account in that period according to what I understood from the community's reactions, the owner of this account may not be from Morocco or even from some country in the Maghreb, but it certainly reflects one aspect of this type of absurd accounts that appeared at that time. - Ayoub 21:43, October 31, 2024 (ATM)

A concise and useful summary: The phrase in question must be removed (including from the essay's history), as it constitutes discrimination against a race or nation. This is not only based on the consensus reached during the discussion, but also in alignment with the UCoC, which Wikimedia upholds, as well as the local policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. This is a straightforward issue, not open to debate, and it is clear that such discrimination must be addressed promptly. -– 197.205.45.189 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cipher Nox! I would like to present three sentences:

  • most of these accounts state on their pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria (original)
  • most of these accounts are from Morocco or Algeria
  • most of these accounts are from Moroccans or Algerians

Which of the three sentences do you feel is meant on the page in question? --Ghilt (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ghilt,
Thank you for your question. To me, the original sentence "most of these accounts state on their pages that they are from Morocco or Algeria" is problematic, regardless of the nuance you're asking about.
It doesn't matter whether the sentence means "most of these accounts are from Morocco or Algeria" or "most of these accounts are from Moroccans or Algerians" the implication remains discriminatory. Associating specific nations with disruptive behavior on Wikipedia serves no constructive purpose. It unfairly targets Algerians and Moroccans while ignoring the fact that manipulative accounts can originate from any country.
Additionally, whether these accounts claim to be from a specific country does not make it factual, as such claims can easily be fabricated. This is not a pattern that can reliably assist CheckUsers or anti-vandalism efforts. Generalizing in this manner risks perpetuating stereotypes and alienating members of these communities, which goes against Wikimedia's core values of neutrality, fairness, and respect.
I hope this clarifies my stance. Thank you for taking the time to engage on this matter.
Best regards. -- 197.205.45.189 15:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thank you. But i don't think it associates "specific nations with disruptive behavior on Wikipedia", because it only reads that they self-proclaim that these accounts are from Morocco or Algeria. And IP localization is generally an important parameter in CU. Ghilt (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your perspective, but I must respectfully disagree. Even if the sentence only claims that these accounts “self-proclaim” to be from Morocco or Algeria, it still carries an implicit association between these nations and disruptive behavior. Whether intentional or not, the mere mention of specific countries in this context invites readers to connect them to vandalism, which is discriminatory and unfair.
Furthermore, relying on self-proclaimed user page information or IP localization as evidence for such generalizations is deeply flawed. IP localization can be spoofed, user claims are unverifiable, and focusing on specific nations undermines the neutrality Wikimedia strives to uphold. It risks alienating contributors from these countries and contradicts the spirit of inclusivity and fairness.
It’s not only me who finds this phrase discriminatory or interprets it as such; others have expressed similar concerns, as I’ve mentioned before. This is clear evidence that the sentence is problematic and does not align with Wikimedia's values. If more people were to see it, I believe it’s easy to predict how they would feel about this type of generalization being present on Wikipedia—it would likely spark frustration and a sense of unfairness.
This is why I, and others, believe the sentence should be removed. It doesn’t add any value to anti-vandalism efforts while perpetuating harmful stereotypes. -- 197.205.45.189 15:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet investigation by CU is also about habits of long term abusers. And if these LTA users regularly post a self-proclamation, this can be used to recognise a user or user group. Regardless of being true or not, and spoofing doesn't change that. Because the habits are editing patterns used to recognise LTA users - regardless of where they actually come from. Ghilt (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about patterns and habits being part of LTA investigations, but this justification still does not hold when it comes to singling out nations in a public essay. Let me explain why:

1. Editing Patterns vs. National Associations
Patterns should focus on behavioral traits. Specific edits, page targets, or methods used. But not unverifiable claims about nationality or origin. Stating that accounts "self-proclaim" to be from Algeria or Morocco serves no practical purpose in identifying or addressing abuse. It only adds a layer of unnecessary and harmful association between disruptive behavior and these nations.

2. Unverifiable Information Is Unreliable Evidence
As you mentioned, the truth of these self-proclamations is irrelevant to recognizing patterns. If that’s the case, why is it even included? Spoofing and falsified user claims undermine the credibility of such statements, making them unreliable as evidence.

3. Public Perception Matters
Regardless of whether the intention is to assist CUs or identify LTAs, this phrasing, when published on a public platform like Wikipedia, creates the perception that Algerians and Moroccans are disproportionately responsible for disruptive behavior. This fuels stereotypes and alienates good-faith contributors from these countries (like me).

4. No Practical Benefit
You’ve argued that these claims help identify LTAs, but I fail to see how this is practically implemented. Would the essay be updated to include every nationality if new accounts made similar claims? What about accounts that provide no such information? This approach is inconsistent and only perpetuates bias.

For these reasons, I firmly believe the phrase should be removed. It does nothing to advance Wikimedia’s mission and instead risks harming the community by fostering division and distrust. I thank you. -- 197.205.45.189 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding the claim of discrimination: are there more users than you, Mohammed Qays, and Kareem Raed that see it that way and want the removal? (Mr. Ayoub didn't ask for removal) --Ghilt (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s true that Mr. Ayoub did not explicitly ask for the phrase's removal (and, to clarify, he also did not ask for it to remain), I referred to his statement because it adds important context. He acknowledged that these accounts from that era might not even be from the Maghreb region. This recognition comes from a neutral, experienced, and respected user, which reinforces the idea that associating specific nations with disruptive behavior is not only baseless but also potentially misleading.
As for the claim of discrimination: I already mentioned other users like Mr. Mohammed Qays and Mr. Kareem Raed who do see the phrase as problematic and discriminatory. This is evidence that the issue is not just my personal perspective but one shared by others in the community. If more people were to come across this phrase, I’m confident they would also find it inappropriate and damaging.
Whether intentional or not, the phrasing singles out Algeria and Morocco in a way that creates unnecessary bias. If the goal is fairness and neutrality, this kind of language has no place in Wikimedia's ecosystem. -- 197.205.45.189 16:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.205.45.189 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

I would also like to address a critical point that Alaa raised in one of his comments (link), as it demonstrates a clear link being made between Moroccan/Algerian accounts and disruptive behavior, which is highly problematic and discriminatory. Specifically, Alaa mentioned the following:

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)

This statement blatantly connects Morocco and Algeria to abuse of Wikimedia projects, based on anecdotal evidence, vague historical claims, and unverified sources like Facebook posts and blogs hosted on WordPress. These are hardly credible or sufficient grounds to generalize and target two nations in such a manner. The comments seem to conflate unrelated events, such as the discontinuation of Wiki Zero (a project that lacked growth and was terminated globally) with specific countries, as if to imply these nations are somehow inherently responsible for such issues. This is not only speculative but also grossly unfair.

Further, the claim that "Moroccan/Algerian accounts exploited Wikimedia Commons" is unfounded and not backed by robust evidence. The tools available to Wikimedia communities, such as CheckUser, IP data, and other technical measures, cannot definitively attribute behavior to entire nations or groups of users. Moreover, Alaa's reliance on unverifiable sources like Facebook posts undermines the credibility of his argument. Any information used to support claims of this nature should come from official Wikimedia data, not external platforms that can be manipulated by anyone.

Finally, Alaa's reference to the historical definition of "absurd accounts" is deeply problematic. He implies that the label was based on the actions of a specific group during a particular timeframe (2016–2020). However, even if this were accurate, it raises serious concerns about the fairness and neutrality of associating this behavior with two specific nations. The implication that "absurd accounts" originated primarily from Morocco or Algeria perpetuates harmful stereotypes and creates an unjustified bias against users from these regions.

At this point, it's crucial to ask:

What purpose does such a targeted association serve for the Wikimedia community? How does this contribute to fairness, neutrality, and respect values that Wikimedia strives to uphold? Would similar statements about other nations (e.g., Egyptians, Syrians, or users from any other country) be acceptable in the same context? We are not demanding the impossible. All we ask for is fairness, neutrality, and respect. It is evident that such statements do not align with Wikimedia's principles and only serve to foster division and discrimination. This issue is no longer about a single sentence but about the broader implications of allowing such language to exist on a platform that champions inclusivity and collaboration.

I trust that you understand the gravity of this matter. It's not just me or a few others raising concerns; it's about the larger implications for the Wikimedia community and its reputation. This discriminatory phrasing must be removed, along with any language that unfairly targets specific nations.

I believe I have presented all the necessary arguments regarding this matter, and I have no further ado. We now wait for the U4C's decision. -- 197.205.3.220 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.205.3.220 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

@Barkeep49, With respect, your focus on individual mentions misses the forest for the trees. While I understand your point about mentioning nationality in some contexts, this isn't simply a casual mention. This statement is publicly visible on Wikipedia, creating a lasting association between two nationalities and negative behavior. This public generalization is what makes it harmful, regardless of the original intent. I believe you are minimizing the harm caused by this public statement. It is creating a discriminatory environment and undermining the trust of users from Morocco and Algeria. I urge you to reconsider your position. -- 197.205.3.220 22:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.205.3.220 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

To Ajraddatz, Ghilt, and other U4C members:

I would like to emphasize that this case isn't solely about one isolated phrase; it's about a recurring pattern of discriminatory implications. For instance, Alaa’s comments about Wikipedia Zero and the alleged exploitation of Wikimedia Commons further accuse Moroccans and Algerians of problematic behavior (link) It's crystal clear that he's accusing Moroccans and Algerians and singling them out in connection to this essay. These remarks compound the issue, making it clear that the association between these nationalities and disruptive actions is being reinforced beyond the phrase in question.

This pattern creates an environment where users from Morocco and Algeria are unfairly stereotyped and alienated. The fact that such associations are made publicly on Wikipedia tarnishes the neutrality and inclusivity that the platform is supposed to uphold.

I believe these repeated implications are clear evidence that this issue extends beyond a single statement and warrants careful consideration by the U4C. I respectfully ask that you take this broader context into account.

We would carefully like to get answers about:

Generalization in Essays
Does your decision imply that it is acceptable for any editor to write essays containing examples targeting specific nations, even unintentionally? If so, does this mean other nations can now be added to similar essays, given that public data is available?

Clarification of "Most"
If the phrase is not deemed a UCoC violation, could you clarify what "most" means in this context? Were any statistics or concrete evidence presented to support the claim that most manipulative accounts self-identify as being from Morocco or Algeria?

Specificity in Accusations
Is the essay claiming these accounts are from "Morocco and Algeria" or "Morocco or Algeria"? Furthermore, where is the evidence supporting that most manipulative accounts originate from these countries? Public data I’ve reviewed indicates otherwise, as other nations have higher rates of vandalism and manipulation. However, I avoid generalizing because it serves no constructive purpose and fosters discrimination.

Wikipedia Zero Incident
Where is the evidence that the Wikipedia Zero incident was specifically caused by Moroccans? The Wikimedia Foundation has not made any such declaration, and the Wikipedia Zero article itself contains no mention of this claim.

Exploitation of Wikimedia Commons
Can you provide evidence that Algerians exploited Wikimedia Commons to upload movies or other files, as alleged? Additionally, how is it plausible to single out Algerians for such actions when similar exploitations occur worldwide across various nations? On the internet, it is unrealistic to claim that such acts are exclusive to Algerians, given Algeria's relatively small population compared to other nations.

Thanks. -- 197.205.3.220 13:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

41.108.164.63 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

Thank you to @TheJoyfulTentmaker for their thoughtful feedback and for raising crucial points that align with the concerns I have been advocating in this case. I would like to address their observations and connect them to the broader issues at hand:

Misinterpretation and Arbitrary Application of Guidelines As TheJoyfulTentmaker rightly pointed out, the Arabic Wikipedia community has a history of arbitrarily interpreting guidelines and policies, often beyond any reasonable variation of their intent. This raises a serious concern about the potential misuse of the essay in question. While some U4C members have emphasized the importance of the essay’s wording, TheJoyfulTentmaker highlights that in the Arabic Wikipedia context, even exact wording doesn’t prevent harmful misinterpretations. This reinforces the argument that leaving this essay as it stands creates a breeding ground for discrimination against contributors from Morocco and Algeria, especially newcomers.

Harm to New Contributors The feedback also draws attention to the disproportionate scrutiny new contributors from Morocco and Algeria may face. The essay generalizes and links specific disruptive behaviors to these nationalities, which could unfairly influence decisions against them, even if they are innocent. This is not hypothetical—it reflects a real risk, given the power dynamics within the Arabic Wikipedia.

Discrimination Based on Language Proficiency TheJoyfulTentmaker brings up another critical point: users from Morocco and Algeria (and likely other regions) often face reprimands for minor slips in language, such as using Algerian Arabic words in discussions. This practice directly contradicts the Universal Code of Conduct’s prohibition of discrimination based on language proficiency. While this issue may not directly stem from the essay, it demonstrates the biased environment the essay contributes to.

Validity of the Concerns Raised The fact that an uninvolved, neutral observer like TheJoyfulTentmaker recognizes and supports the validity of the concerns raised here adds weight to my arguments. This is not just about a single phrase or sentence—it is about the discriminatory environment this essay fosters and its broader implications for equity and inclusion in the Arabic Wikipedia.

Request for Clarity and Action: To the U4C, We respectfully ask for clear answers to the following questions to address these valid concerns:

  • How does the U4C justify allowing this essay to remain, given its potential to harm and discourage contributors from specific nationalities?
  • What safeguards are in place to ensure this essay will not be misinterpreted or misused to unfairly target Moroccan and Algerian users?
  • How does the essay, as currently written, align with the Universal Code of Conduct’s principles of equity and non-discrimination? -- 41.108.164.63 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.206.170.152 (Renamed user 3aa4fe0c77e1279e6d0fa928eac40011)

@0xDeadbeef, @Ghilt, @Ajraddatz, @Barkeep49,

On Evidence and Generalizations

What concrete evidence supports the claim that most of these accounts explicitly state on their user pages that they are from Algeria or Morocco? How many accounts were reviewed to conclude that Algeria and Morocco represent the majority, and what percentage do they represent compared to accounts from other countries?

On Linking Incidents to Nationalities

Why did the admin who authored the essay explicitly link[6] it to the Wikipedia Zero and Wikimedia Commons incidents? How is that not discriminatory when it singles out Algerians and Moroccans? If the admin wasn’t attempting to vilify or humiliate individuals or groups, why did they choose to associate these nationalities with negative behaviors in such a public and permanent way?

On Community Consensus

Why is the consensus of users calling for the removal of this phrasing being disregarded in favor of retaining a potentially harmful and discriminatory statement? How do you reconcile this decision with Wikipedia's values of neutrality and inclusivity? Did the admin get the community’s approval to write this essay? Some admins even threaten to ban editors for making changes to essays without community consent.[7]



On Lack of Discussion

Why hasn’t there been a structured discussion or detailed response to my arguments before votes are cast? I respect your choices, but how can we arrive at a fair decision without properly addressing the points raised?



On Future Implications

If this case is closed with a decision to keep the statement, does this set a precedent allowing anyone to write essays claiming "Most vandal accounts state they are from [any country]" (e.g., China, Germany, India, U.S., Egypt, France) based on anecdotal evidence?



On Transparency and Purpose

How does publicizing such statements serve the broader Wikipedia community? Why is this phrasing not restricted to internal CU practices, especially since it’s claimed to assist checkusers? CUs are highly trusted users and already have the expertise to identify patterns without public essays. What is the added benefit of making this public? If such patterns exist, why hasn’t this information been presented as part of a formal CU report or statistical analysis instead of an essay that risks fostering stereotypes? -- 197.206.170.152 14:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Why hasn’t there been a structured discussion or detailed response to my arguments before votes are cast? I respect your choices, but how can we arrive at a fair decision without properly addressing the points raised?" the purpose of this part of case has been to determine if further detailed examination is necessary/appropriate. I'm sure it's disappointing that the 4 members who've voted so far don't think it is, but that's the answer to this question. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, Thank you for clarifying that the purpose of this stage is to assess whether further detailed examination is necessary. However, I would like to address this decision:
Lack of Structured Discussion: While I understand that the members who voted feel further examination is unnecessary, I believe my arguments have not been addressed in detail. Without proper discussion or evidence to counter my points, the decision risks being perceived as arbitrary or dismissive.
Unanswered Key Questions: My case raises critical concerns, such as:
The lack of concrete evidence supporting the claim that most vandal accounts explicitly state they are from Algeria or Morocco.
The clear association made in the essay between Algerians, Moroccans, and incidents like Wikipedia Zero, which risks fostering harmful stereotypes.
The consensus of users calling for the removal of the phrase.
Precedent and Fairness: Declining further review without fully engaging with these concerns sets a precedent that could undermine Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality and inclusivity. It also raises questions about how such cases are handled and whether valid concerns are given due weight.
I urge the U4C to reconsider the decision not to proceed with further examination, as the issues raised have implications for fairness, community trust, and the potential misuse of essays to promote harmful generalizations.
Thank you for your time and consideration. -- 197.206.170.152 17:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

  • 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.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Allegations_of_discrimination_in_ArWiki&oldid=28275395"