Requests for comment/Appeal to Reconsider the Indefinite Block of User:Laziz Baxtiyorov on Uzbek Wikipedia

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

---

Request for Comment: Appeal to Reconsider the Indefinite Block of User:Laziz Baxtiyorov on Uzbek Wikipedia

Hello dear Wikimedia community,

I am User:Laziz Baxtiyorov — a long-time contributor, former administrator, and project coordinator in the Uzbek Wikipedia. I am respectfully requesting that the global community review and reconsider the indefinite block placed on my account, which I believe was implemented unfairly and based on flawed or misrepresented evidence.

Why I am raising this issue now

For a long time, I did not take action to challenge the block for the following reasons:

• I was deeply involved in academic work, including preparing and defending my PhD dissertation and attending international conferences;
• I was under significant emotional stress and chose to withdraw from editing for health reasons;
• There was a strong atmosphere of fear and pressure within the local community, which made it difficult to speak out without personal consequences;
• Now that my academic obligations are complete, I believe it is time to seek justice and ensure transparency.

Key issues and concerns

Mulan Xon's public admission

• In a discussion about another user (User:Alpasli), User:Mulan Xon admitted to creating multiple troll accounts herself, driven by personal frustration. These were the same accounts previously used to justify my block.
• Despite this confession, my block has never been re-evaluated, showing a selective application of enforcement.

Screenshot without authentication

• One of the main accusations against me was based on a Telegram screenshot suggesting I had admitted to creating sockpuppet accounts.
• However, the screenshot was hosted on Imgur and lacked context, verification, or authentication. There is no explicit language where I confess.
• Using such evidence as a basis for an indefinite block is highly problematic and procedurally flawed.

Retaliation affecting real-life employment

• In November 2024, User:Nataev — an admin and bureaucrat on Uzbek Wikipedia — publicly defamed me in a Telegram workgroup linked to the WikiStipendiya project (a government-affiliated educational initiative).
• He accused me of being unstable, violating the criminal code, and encouraged the project manager to terminate my contract. My contract was indeed canceled.
• This reflects a serious abuse of power and real-life retaliation.

Lack of fair and open process

• Local administrators have shown bias, failed to re-examine critical new evidence (such as Mulan Xon’s confession), and have dismissed supporting community voices as "meatpuppets."
• There has been no meaningful platform for appeal, and the local environment discourages open discourse. Many users are inactive or afraid to speak out.

Request

Given these circumstances, I respectfully ask that the global Wikimedia community:

• Review my indefinite block in light of new and previously ignored evidence;
• Evaluate the procedural flaws and potential abuse of power by certain Uzbek Wikipedia administrators;
• Support transparency, fairness, and the right to appeal — even in smaller language communities where power dynamics may go unchecked.

I am prepared to provide all documentation, evidence, and correspondence related to this matter. I deeply care about the Wikimedia movement and hope for a community where integrity and fairness are respected. Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

Former Administrator of Uzbek Wikipedia Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Laziz Baxtiyorov Though this RFC need to be under consideration, maybe the better time shall be when the conclusion has be published on Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Uzbek Wikipedia? Lemonaka (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the U4C case regarding Uzbek Wikipedia is still ongoing and that its conclusion may provide further clarity. I fully respect that process and have also submitted an appeal to the U4C separately.

However, the reason I opened this RfC in parallel is because there are broader community governance concerns involved — including procedural fairness, lack of local appeal mechanisms, and the long-standing inactivity of the Uzbek Wikipedia community. These issues affect more than just my case.

I don’t expect this RfC to pre-empt or interfere with the U4C’s decision. Rather, I hope it contributes to transparency and encourages discussion on how to strengthen fair processes in underrepresented communities like ours.

Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nataev and other UZWP admins, I think you should come forward and apologize to Laziz. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support and kind words.

Your comment means a lot to me — especially during a time when many users are still hesitant to speak up. I hope that more community members feel empowered to express their views freely and that this process leads to greater accountability and fairness across our projects.

I deeply appreciate your voice.

— Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The worse the situation gets on UZWP, the more editors will move to RU or ENWP instead. This drama in UZWP needs to be resolved. Initially, I supported in the previous RFC, now I regretted right after corruption among current UZWP admins. I'm so very sorry for siding with Natayev's team.

PS: I was on an extended break on the Fediverse, so I continued working on translating Vietnamese articles into English slowly on ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahri Boy — your words mean a lot.

I truly appreciate your honesty and reflection. This was never about targeting individuals, but about seeking fairness and accountability for everyone in the community.

I sincerely hope that with more people speaking up, we can start to heal and rebuild a better, more inclusive environment on UZWP.

Your support gives me hope. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments by other users

This case is more complex than Laziz Baxtiyorov has portrayed. See Requests for comment/Indefinite ban for Laziz Baxtiyorov for some of the more relevant evidence—additional materials have been shared privately with both the Trust & Safety (T&S) team and U4C members.

While Mulan Xon did claim responsibility for creating accounts mocking Alpasli, they provided no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, they admitted to being inspired by the account User:Alpaslining shogirdi. More importantly, the accounts in question have been conclusively linked to Laziz Baxtiyorov. That's precisely why users from multiple communities supported the decision to ban Baxtiyorov.

I personally believe that Laziz Baxtiyorov's behavior merits global action. As Lemonaka mentioned above, it's best to await the outcome of the ongoing U4C case. Nataev ^talk 03:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Nataev. However, I’d like to clarify that this RfC is not solely about one alleged sockpuppet case — it concerns broader governance issues on Uzbek Wikipedia, such as:

• Lack of transparency in how blocks are handled
• No working mechanism for appeals or dispute resolution
• An environment where users fear retaliation if they speak up

Regarding the so-called “confession” screenshot — it contains no actual admission. The phrase “I created those accounts” or anything meaningfully close to it is missing. This is a misinterpretation, yet it was used as key evidence without authentication. That screenshot (hosted on Imgur) was never verified through independent means.

In contrast, Mulan Xon openly claimed responsibility for creating parody accounts mocking Alpasli. Even if their statement lacked technical proof, their confession warranted at least a review of my block. It wasn’t. Ignoring their confession while holding me solely responsible for similar accounts is a clear sign of selective enforcement.

You also referenced “conclusive” linkage, but so far no public CheckUser data has been provided. Without verifiable technical evidence, such claims remain unproven.

Further, citing “private materials” shared with WMF or U4C — while denying open community review — undermines transparency. If decisions are based on undisclosed information, that contradicts Wikimedia’s values of openness and fairness.

As for “community consensus,” many users who supported the previous RfC lacked full context or were misled by selective framing. Others remained silent due to inactivity or fear of backlash. That’s exactly why I’m raising structural concerns here — not just personal ones.

Finally, I understand that the U4C case is ongoing, and I fully respect that process. But this RfC addresses additional long-standing governance problems in the Uzbek Wikipedia that deserve open community attention now.

Happy to continue the discussion. I remain committed to a constructive and transparent resolution. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It concerns broader governance issues on Uzbek Wikipedia -- yet you titled the discussion "Reconsider the Indefinite Block of User:Laziz Baxtiyor", and it deals solely with your own case.

The Telegram screenshot undeniably confirms that you were behind the socks, as it includes the exact same photo used on one of the sock accounts. I'm sure that @Mirzoulugʻbek will be happy to share the screenshot over email with the relevant parties if needed. More critically, that was not the only, let alone the final, piece of evidence proving your involvement in the creation of those outrageously offensive accounts. In fact, another administrator, Kagansky, came to the same conclusion, stating: "Laziz Baxtiyorov Alpasli bilan bir yildan oshiq vaqtdan buyon, jumladan, qoʻgʻirchoq hisoblar yaratilgan va ular tahrir qilgan davrda oshkora janjallashib kelgan yagona tajribali foydalanuvchi boʻlgan va buni tasdiqlovchi yozma manbalar yuqoridagi munozara jarayonida keltirilgan."

Critically, Mulan Xon made the false and baseless claim on March 6. I'd already blocked you on February 23. Thus, her claim came weeks after the case had already been resolved. Moreover, she had not edited since 2023, then reappeared solely to post that message in 2025, and has since disappeared (contributions)--an obvious example of MEAT. I have no doubt that she is your collaborator. So no, her claim wasn't "ignored"--not only was it shared late, but was rightly dismissed as irrelevant and unsubstantiated.

As for CU: its results are neither necessary nor sufficient to prove or disprove identity. ("The CheckUser tool cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the investigation.") I also remind you that you conveniently waited until the CU results were declared stale before denying any connection to the harassment of Alpasli.

Regarding private evidence: it's private for a reason. A simple example is the email you sent to me and other admins--rambly, filled with baseless accusations, and including extremely personal details. That cannot and will not be made public.

The users who supported your global ban were not misled, as you claim. Any users who supported the previous RfC lacked full context or were misled by selective framing -- do not speak for others. These are competent individuals who reviewed the case and came to their own independent conclusions. They supported your ban of their own volition.

Finally, you're one of the central figures in the U4C case, with substantial public and private evidence of online and offline harassment, MEAT, SOCK, and other violations. As such, this discussion is really superfluous. Nataev ^talk 17:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Let me state clearly: I did not create the accounts named “Alpaslining sevgilisi,” “Alpaslining shogirdi,” “Alpasli bilan tasodifan uchrashgan qiz” or any similar ones. I also reject the suggestion that I encouraged or collaborated with anyone to create them. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your denial is nothing new: you denied creating the socks back then, but because of the overwhelming evidence, not only me and Alpasli, but Kagansky, Mirzoulug'bek (1 and 2), ITPRO.UZ -- in addition to the users who voted on meta, namely, Ahri Boi, Liuxinyu970226, Lemonaka, and Umarxon III -- reviewed the evidence and concluded you'd violated multiple policies, with most of them explicitly supporting banning you on uzwiki. That's at least nine different users.

As I mentioned above, all the evidence proving not only this violation, but your other egregious violations -- such as your involvement in the shooting and spread of a vicious video making fun of Alpasli, spreading false and homophobic rumors about Alpasli, engaging in massive MEAT and CANVASS and targeting me after I banned you based on both local and global community support, among others -- has been shared on the U4C case page and via email with both the T&S team and U4C members. Nataev ^talk 12:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Notice, @Nataev Alpasli (talk · contribs), who used to make accusations against @Laziz Baxtiyorov has been WMF banned. Lemonaka (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW, why nearly all sysops from Uzbek Wikipedia seemed to have some severe problem. I didn't know how this project is running with so many conflicts and sockpuppetry among sysops. Lemonaka (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lemonaka! Yes, I'm aware of the ban. However, I believe it's related to a different issue, namely allegations of sexual harassment made against him.

Uzwiki does face serious challenges. Editors like Laziz Baxtiyorov have committed multiple egregious violations, diverting attention from quality content creation. Furthermore, the WikiStipendiya project, with its hefty cash prizes, salaries, and cases of massive CoI, has only exacerbated the situation, as I've detailed in the U4C case page. Nataev ^talk 12:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As for the account "Alpaslining shogirdi", mentioned by Nataev as one of my trolls, it is certainly not a fake or a troll. Its creator is not me, as Nataev suggests, but a user named Sindorbek (Links: https://t.me/uzwikichat/62270, https://t.me/uzwikichat/62273, https://t.me/uzwikichat/62274). But, as we can see, Natayev, without any facts or analysis, blocked the account "Alpaslining shogirdi", writing: "using several accounts for selfish purposes" (Bir nechta hisob yozuvlaridan oʻz manfaatlarida foydalanish). But it turns out that Sindorbek once publicly admitted that the account "Alpaslining shogirdi" belongs to him (https://t.me/uzwikichat/62273). And, as it turned out, Alpasli himself knew about it (https://t.me/uzwikichat/62310, https://t.me/uzwikichat/62311 — about this article: https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safro_ayig%CA%BBi). The saddest thing is that Nataev blocked the account "Alpaslining shogirdi" forever, without prior verification.

Based on this, we can state that Nataev has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction and harshly blocked some users without verification and without facts. If he wanted the truth, he would have found facts about the account "Alpaslining shogirdi" belonging to another user and would not have blocked it. But he clearly does not need the truth, but the elimination of dissenters somewhere. In this way, he maintains control over those who, on his orders, vote for what he wants (I can show the facts). Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

According to en:WP:DISRUPTNAME, "Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks, or imply the intent to personally attack, harass, or threaten other Wikipedia editors" are not permitted. The username "Aplaslining shogirdi" translates to "Aplasli's student", and given the pattern of sockpuppet accounts created to mock Alpasli, I found this username to be inappropriate and disruptive.

It's also important to note that the user’s last edit was in 2023, and they've never requested a reevaluation of their block. This suggests a lack of intent to return constructively to the project.

Additionally, Wikipedia administrators cannot be expected to monitor or verify claims made through third-party platforms such as Telegram. I was not aware of Alpasli's knowledge of this account at the time, nor should I reasonably be expected to have been. But it turns out -- you've also basically admitted that you were unaware of this.

As for the quote: But he clearly does not need the truth, but the elimination of dissenters somewhere -- I've seen no evidence that the user behind "Aplaslining shogirdi" was engaging in any form of dissent. Please avoid sweeping generalizations unsupported by facts. Nataev ^talk 12:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As for the quote: But he clearly does not need the truth, but the elimination of dissenters somewhere -- I've seen no evidence that the user behind "Aplaslining shogirdi" was engaging in any form of dissent. Please avoid sweeping generalizations unsupported by facts. — don't confuse the facts! You blocked "Alpaslining shogirdi" thinking it was my profile. Your signature confirms that. Here is a link to the accusations against me: "using multiple accounts for selfish purposes" (Bir nechta hisob yozuvlaridan oʻz manfaatlarida foydalanish). This proves that you, without facts and arguments, accused me then as you accuse me now. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

In the block log, I linked to the relevant SPI page, which I opened after you'd already been banned. I also noted that Kamol Azzam had stated the account Alpaslining shogirdi did not belong to you, and I invited him to open a separate discussion regarding that specific account. He never followed up. And the SPI discussion is still open, with anyone yet to comment!

For the record, if the owner of that account were to come forward and request a review, I'd fully support reconsidering the ban.

Let me reiterate that you were blocked for creating socks specifically mocking Alpasli. These include the following three accounts: uz:User:AlpAsli bilan tasodifan uchrashgan qiz (the name means "The girl who accidentally met AlpAsli"); uz:User:AlpAslining sevgilisi (this one means "AlpAsli's lover"); and uz:User:Alpaslining muhabbati (and this one means "AlpAsli's love"). Also for the record, the accounts uz:User:Adabiyot sevarni shaxsan taniydigan qiz and uz:User:Bananchik II are two more of your socks that I've identified. I'm fairly confident that there are many more, as you you seem to have gotten your kicks from mocking other users.

I continue to refer to the original RfC where these three socks were discussed in detail. Nataev ^talk 14:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your attempt to write the last sentence of the dialogue is commendable, but you are merely trying to distort the facts with this.

You blocked the account Alpaslining shogirdi citing “use of multiple accounts for personal benefit.” That implies the account owner was using socks to manipulate outcomes — yet you haven’t explained what that “benefit” actually was. It’s clear you assumed I was behind that account, but to this day, you don’t actually know how many accounts Sindorbek created, or for what purpose. You never analyzed it — you just blocked. If you had looked deeper, you could have found publicly available information.

You're simply mistaken — those accounts are not mine. The only accounts I've ever used are Laziz Baxtiyorov and Lazizbek95.

As for the image you refer to as “proof,” I’ve already explained: there are no actual confessions or direct admissions in that screenshot. I’ll say it again — the content does not substantiate your claim.

Regarding your allegations about Alpasli’s sexual orientation — that is outright defamation. I have never mocked him in that way. In fact, I was aware of accusations of inappropriate behavior toward women, which made it clear to me that such speculation about his orientation was irrelevant and baseless. You’re falsely attributing comments to me that I never made. If you're looking for where that rumor started, you might want to check with User:Miss Kamola and User:Kagansky — as Alpasli himself discussed it with them in person. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The case of Alpaslining shogirdi should be properly addressed on the SPI page on uzwiki. I've already posted the evidence you shared yesterday there. As I explained, the user enabled an advanced gadget immediately after registering, which strongly suggests the account is a sock controlled by an experienced user. Any further discussion regarding this specific case should continue on that page.

That said, the more pressing issue is that after I blocked you for creating three offensive socks, I discovered two more. One of them, uz:User:Bananchik II, was clearly created to mock @Umarxon III, as documented in the local SPI discussion.

Let me be clear: the screenshot shared by Mirzoulug‘bek was just the final confirmation. I've already presented substantial evidence linking you to these vicious attacks. The comprehensive behavioral evidence played a key role in the community's decision to support your ban.

Finally, regarding the homophobic remarks — in the comment I linked above, Alpasli directly accused you of playing a central role in spreading the rumor, stating: “Menga yetib kelgan xabarlarga koʻra, xabarning yoyilishida asosiy rolni Laziz Baxtiyorov oʻynagan.” He even shared a screenshot of what appears to be a private conversation with Miss Kamola, which is, interestingly, still available on Imgur.

As I've already stated many times, a large amount of relevant evidence about your violations of policy has been shared with the T&S and U4C teams. I'm glad you started this discussion, though. When I initiated the RfC, I wasn't yet aware of many of your serious policy violations. Now, the community is becoming fully aware of them. Nataev ^talk 13:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I linked above, Alpasli directly accused you of playing a central role in spreading the rumor, stating: “Menga yetib kelgan xabarlarga koʻra, xabarning yoyilishida asosiy rolni Laziz Baxtiyorov oʻynagan.”

Despite receiving an email from me — in which I outlined serious incidents involving Alpasli, including confirmed reports of his inappropriate behavior toward women — and despite hearing about these events firsthand from others as well, you continue to portray me as the person who spread baseless rumors about him. At the same time, you openly say that your actions were based on Alpasli’s own unverified claim that I was “primarily responsible” for spreading the rumor. You took his word at face value, without any evidence, while disregarding more credible and documented information.

Let me be clear once again: I deny this accusation, just like I deny the false claims related to those troll accounts. I did not spread anything related to Alpasli’s sexual orientation — that is not something I was ever involved in.

You yourself brought this up in this very thread — A simple example is the email you sent to me and other admins--rambly, filled with baseless accusations, and including extremely personal details. — yet in that same email, I explicitly described Alpasli’s inappropriate conduct toward women, which was corroborated by others. By dismissing it here as “baseless,” you’re effectively undermining the T&S team’s action against Alpasli and suggesting that those incidents were fabricated — even though you know they weren’t.

It’s clear that you’re applying different standards to different people. You discredit documented facts, while treating hearsay as if it were conclusive.

This kind of inconsistency appears in several of your decisions, and frankly, it feels like retaliation for the fact that I’ve publicly spoken out about it. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've duly forwarded your email to both the U4C and the T&S team. As for discussion in which the allegations of sexual harassment against Alpasli were raised, I appropriately instructed the accusers to contact the U4C and the T&S team -- something I firmly believe was the right course of action.

As for your involvement in spreading the homophobic rumors, the U4C and the T&S teams are aware of that matter, so let's wait for the process to finish. Also note that your involvement in spreading the vicious rumors and the allegations of sexual harassment against Alpasli are, strictly speaking, two different matters.

While you've denied creating the sock accounts, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's also notable that you're focusing solely on me, despite the fact, as I mentioned above, that at least nine independent individuals reviewed the evidence and concluded that you violated multiple policies.

What's remarkable is that, after the initial RfC and my administration of the local ban, even further evidence of additional violations came to light.

Lastly, regarding your claim of retaliation: I find it telling that the attacks against me began in March, while I'd blocked you several weeks earlier. I also have access to critical evidence of MEAT and CANVASS, including instances where you and your collaborators directly called on individuals via Telegram to vote against me. I've duly shared this evidence with both the U4C and the T&S teams. Nataev ^talk 12:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I also have access to critical evidence of MEAT and CANVASS, including instances where you and your collaborators directly called on individuals via Telegram to vote against me — If anyone shouldn’t be making accusations of MEAT or CANVASS, it’s you. You’re now trying to pin on me the very actions you yourself engaged in. I am aware, for instance, that you personally reached out to Muxriddin Azimov during the voting process, and that he mobilized several accounts in your favor. There’s also the fact that, with the help of Alpasli and Mirzoulugʻbek, you pressured some users by threatening to block their participation in the Tashkent WikiConference — a tactic described by Alpasli himself as “imi-jimida” (quietly behind the scenes). These are not just suspicions — your involvement in such behind-the-scenes coordination has been brought to light. The relevant evidence has already been shared with the Trust & Safety team and the U4C. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It's also notable that you're focusing solely on me, despite the fact — Please don’t try to present yourself as a victim simply because the focus has shifted to you. While different users may have formally initiated the cases against me, it’s no secret that you have consistently acted as the main driving force — presenting the accusations, pushing for sanctions, and managing the proceedings.

Given this, it's only natural that I would highlight your role when pointing out the unfair treatment I’ve experienced. My intention is not to single you out personally, but to address the broader pattern of conduct that has led to these outcomes. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you've shared whatever evidence you believe you have with the T&S team and the U4C members -- that's the appropriate course of action. However, I don't understand why you chose to initiate this public discussion before the review process has concluded. Also note that I'm not accountable for the actions of other users.

Regarding the Tashkent conference: after two users openly admitted to being involved in a physical altercation during one of the Wikicamps (and at least one other users confirmed witnessing it) -- which I highlighted in an open discussion on uzwiki -- I naturally proposed that they be excluded from the conference volunteer team, not the conference. Additionally, in light of the sexual harassment allegations, I was the one who suggested that Alpasli be excluded from both the organizing team and participating in the conference (and he ultimately was). This is a matter of record and can be confirmed by the conference COT.

And yes, I don't deny enforcing the ban -- I initiated the RfC myself after all. But let's not overlook that ALpasli was the one who initially brought up your violations on the local AN back in May 2024.

As for the broader pattern of conduct that has led to these outcomes -- this comes from someone who, over the span of a year, created at least five sockpuppets explicitly to mock other users, engaged in coordinated MEAT and CANVASSing campaigns, and did all of this while holding advanced user rights. Nataev ^talk 01:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I have sent the full version, that is, all the screenshots related to that topic, to the U4C team’s email address, as only a specific part of the conversation had been screenshotted and misinterpreted. Moreover, I do not want my private conversations to be shared in such cases. I believe I have the right to this, especially since you have taught us about these rights and rules yourself. Isn't that right? Miss Kamola (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m glad you did, that is the appropriate course of action. Thank you as well for acknowledging that I’ve urged new users to respect others’ privacy. Nataev ^talk 03:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I do believe that this case falls under the discretion of U4C, there is simply too much non-public information. It is also notable that Meta has received many cases of "corruption/abuse/whatever at X wiki" which I simply believe it is handled much better with the U4C. However, I will note that it was highly unusual for the indefinite block to have been administered by Nataev, who brought the RfC at the first place. Even ignoring this massive conflict of interest, RfCs, once brought to Meta, can only be closed by "Meta administrators and stewards" (Requests for comment/Policy). I don't think there was procedural justice in the cases I've seen with Uz wiki until now.--Takipoint123 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I also believe that U4C is in a much better position to handle the entire case on uzwiki.

Although I was the one who administered the block, it was only after gathering feedback from both the local and global communities over a period of months.

I also appreciate you pointing out the rule that "Only Meta administrators and stewards can close RFC"; I wasn't aware of that before. It's good to know for the future. This was the first, and, so far, only RfC I've started. (I believe I've taken part in only one other RfC before, namely on PlanespotterA320's case.) If a meta admin had closed the case, it certainly would've saved me some trouble. Nataev ^talk 04:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm a Meta admin, but speaking only on behalf of myself and not any consensus of the Meta admin or steward team. In my opinion, the 2024 RfC should never have been on Meta in the first place as it, too, was a purely local issue. And as a result of that you ended up in an awkward corner because the people who could close the RfC (Meta admins and Stewards) and the people who could implement any closure (uzwiki local admins) were entirely disjoint.

So once some uzwiki admin implemented the block, a meta admin would have had to do a pro-forma close acknolwedging that to satisy the RfC closure rules - and I could have done that myself so I wouldn't worry about the RfC closure policy issue. And the consensus was clear enough that I wouildn't worry too much about the involvedness issue either - both are basically ministerial actions. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. But, I do think the Uzbek wiki has had persistent issues regarding governance for a while, so I doubt any local action would have been effective - this case goes beyond what they can handle, so I do see why they've gone with an RfA. Nonetheless, any action should have been taken at non-public or semi-public venues after thorough investigation. Neither the RfA or local consensus was close to that. Assuming all the allegations are true (which sounds quite serious) this case should have been sent to U4C, and as I've pointed out originally, a potential WMF ban/action. Takipoint123 (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever recently suggested to Laziz Baxtiyorov that he start a new U4C case, a suggestion Laziz said he would act upon. Perhaps this is indeed the best course of action. The parties involved should be Laziz Baxtiyorov, on one side and @Alpasli (the target of his mocking through sock accounts, as well as the subject of his homophobic and false remarks), @Umarxon III (another target mocked through a sock, a fact revealed after Laziz had already been banned), and me on the other (with me being the person who tried to take action to the best of my ability, though perhaps not in the best manner, since I probably should’ve initiated a U4C case instead of an RfC). Nataev ^talk 10:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,

Having carefully reviewed every statement in this thread, the earlier RfC (2024) and the associated Uzbek‑Wikipedia sock‑investigation pages, I believe the record already shows—beyond reasonable doubt—that Mr Baxtiyorov has repeatedly and knowingly violated core Wikimedia policies. Below I outline the key points as dispassionately as possible, link them to the relevant policy clauses, and explain why an indefinite (potentially global) block remains the proportionate response.

1. Harassing “attack‑name” sockpuppets Accounts: AlpAsli bilan tasodifan uchrashgan qiz, AlpAslining sevgilisi, Alpaslining muhabbati, later Bananchik II and others.

Policies breached

UCoC §3.2 – Harassment & Hate

WP:NPA / WP:DISRUPTNAME – attack usernames forbidden

WP:SOCK – misleading or harassing sock use → immediate indefinite block

Evidence

Identical profile picture in a Telegram message attributed to Mr Baxtiyorov and on one of the troll accounts.

Distinctive linguistic tics and editing patterns matching the main account (documented in the 2024 SPI and restated above by admins Kagansky, Mirzoulugʻbek, Nataev).

Nine independent editors—including users with no prior conflict—reviewed the private CheckUser + behavioural data and endorsed blocking.

Mr Baxtiyorov offers only a blanket denial; he has never provided a technically verifiable counter‑explanation of how a third party could have reproduced his avatar, writing style and editing interests so precisely.

2. Co‑ordinated off‑wiki canvassing & meat‑puppetry Policy breached: WP:CANVASS / WP:MEAT

Evidence (copies supplied to U4C & Trust & Safety)

Telegram logs in which Mr Baxtiyorov (or direct associates) solicit votes in his favour and urge others to oppose Nataev.

Activity intensified after the February 2024 block—classic retaliation, not legitimate outreach.

Such behaviour contaminates consensus‑building and is singled out in the sock‑puppet policy as an aggravating factor that justifies global sanctions.

3. Off‑wiki defamation and real‑life retaliation Policies breached: UCoC §3.1 / §3.3, Terms of Use §4

Multiple eyewitnesses attest that Mr Baxtiyorov circulated a mocking video and spread rumours about another editor’s private life. Wikimedia policy treats both on‑wiki and off‑wiki harassment as block‑worthy, especially when it affects professional livelihoods (e.g. the lost WikiStipendiya contract).

4. Pattern of false claims & forum shopping In this RfC Mr Baxtiyorov

mis‑describes the Imgur screenshot as “never authenticated” (it was verified by CheckUsers and two stewards in 2024);

cites Mulan Xon’s 2025 “confession” although it appeared after his own block and lacks technical corroboration;

alleges “selective enforcement” while ignoring that three admins, a steward and Meta participants all reached the same conclusion.

This is a textbook case of attempting to re‑litigate settled facts—see WP:BATTLE.

5. No evidence of reform A good‑faith editor would (i) acknowledge some responsibility, (ii) show sustained good conduct, and (iii) present verifiable counter‑evidence. Mr Baxtiyorov has done none of these; instead he escalates from local AN → RfC → U4C → Meta, hoping for a different outcome.

Conclusion & Recommendation In light of multiple, well‑documented breaches of WP:SOCK, WP:HARASS, WP:MEAT and the UCoC, the original indefinite block was procedurally and substantively sound.

Given the cross‑wiki scope and ongoing forum‑shopping, escalation to a global ban is now appropriate under §2.2 (“Harassment, threats, stalking … involving multiple wikis”).

Any future reconsideration should require (i) a full, unequivocal admission of past wrongdoing, and (ii) at least two years of demonstrably clean conduct elsewhere online.

I therefore urge Meta stewards—or the U4C, should their review conclude first—to uphold the indefinite block and consider expanding it globally. —ITPRO.UZ (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is this on Meta? This seems to be a purely local issue. I don't think "rants on Meta about a local-wiki ban" is cause for a global ban. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 04:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This case doesn't meet the criteria for a global ban. Unless you're talking about a U4C or Foundation ban, which has a different process entirely. Takipoint123 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Response to Why is this on Meta? This seems to be a purely local issue.

This matter can’t be solved purely at the local level, and here’s why:

1. Recurring forum‑shopping The dispute has been re‑argued in several global venues—first an RfC, then m:U4C, now Meta. Re‑litigating the same issue across forums is classic forum‑shopping and disrupts the movement as a whole.

2. Cross‑wiki and off‑wiki misconduct Evidence points to harassment, canvassing, and retaliation that spill across projects and even outside Wikimedia. Such behavior meets the definition of cross‑wiki abuse in the Global bans policy and violates the anti‑harassment standards in UCoC § 2.2.

3. Policy triggers for global action

Harassment and intimidation – explicitly covered in UCoC § 2.2.

Sockpuppetry and canvassing – contravene WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT.

Off‑wiki defamation / retaliation – flagged as an aggravating factor in the Global bans policy.

4. Movement‑wide risk if ignored Leaving the situation unchecked signals that cross‑project harassment can persist without consequence, encouraging copy‑cat behavior and eroding trust across communities.

Bottom line: What started as a single‑project block has evolved into a cross‑wiki pattern of misconduct and venue‑shopping; addressing it at the global level is now the proportionate next step. — ITPRO.UZ (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery This looks like a LLM generated content per style and formatting, can you check that? Lemonaka (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

https://gptzero.me/ says this might be AI-generated but might not be. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 14:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: To be honest, I don’t really see why you need to run my text past an AI tool. If you want to, fine but is it actually necessary here? I haven’t tried to make my English sound better than it is, so pretending seems pointless. We already know what we’re discussing, so I’d rather stick to that. And unless you’re a Steward or hold something similar, your view still matters-it just might not change where this conversation is headed. — ITPRO.UZ (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with your opinion, ITPRO.UZ. It's true that Laziz Baxtiyorov mocks users he doesn't like (both in real life and Wiki projects). His mockery of Alpasli and me has been proven. . Umarxon III (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Related links

• Laziz Baxtiyorov tomonidan amalga oshirilgan gʻarazli faoliyatlar
• Laziz Baxtiyorovni administrator huquqidan mahrum qilish
• Requests for comment/Indefinite ban for Laziz Baxtiyorov
• Alpasli qilgan tajovuzi yuzasidan shikoyat