Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Uzbek Wikipedia

Reply to User:Casual

Comment moved, @User:Jamshid Nurkulov you are welcome to create a feedback section for your contributions to the case but the case page is not meant to be a place for discussion among users. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There are rules in the Uzbek Wikipedia that clearly state that privileges are given and taken away only by bureaucrats or steward. Based on this, only a bureaucrat or steward could make a decision on this discussion, especially since you voted there. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I removed my conclusion so that the bureaucrat or a steward could make their conclusion. --Casual (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC).

I just want to remind you that this is the second time something like this has happened. Last time I didn't say anything because Nataev reminded me of the conflict of interest earlier. I expected other admins to say something about it, but in vain. If I had said anything about it on uzwiki, I probably would have been blocked for disagreement, just like this user Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Rest assured that I am acting in good faith to the best of my ability. --Casual (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC).

Confidential information

Dear U4C members: @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:

I have previously said that the city I live in is personal information. But Nataev denied this, saying that I have previously written about the city I live in. This is not true. I have never indicated the name of the city I live in. If I got off some metro and got on some bus, this does not mean that I lived or live in this city. The bus I got on goes to the city's train station. Maybe I took a bus to the station and then got on a train to my region or city? I have never indicated the city of my residence and I do not want anyone to indicate this on open forums. Please remove the names of cities from the forum, this is confidential information. The fact that Nataev knows some confidential information about me does not mean that he can disclose it to everyone. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledging that this has been seen and we're discussing. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Doxxing by Nataev

Dear UCoC team. I truly feel threatened. There’s no any inwiki information that states my real identity. My wiki account is not connected to my other social media pages (which have always been private or closed pages for a very long time). Nataev is trying to expose my identity and out of wiki activities again, just because I voted against his favor. This behaviour is unacceptable. I ask you once again, please, remove Nataev’s personal data claims shared without my consent. This is doxing. Ayqironlik (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

P.s. Nataev has Checkuser rights, which means he can determine current location of any user. However, I want to remind you that making this information public would be an abuse of his rights as outlined in Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy Ayqironlik (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please, pay attention, that Nataev has been showing this behaviour way before the case was opened. While trying to discredit a user’s vote in a forum, he shared a link to Commons which contained a group photo in which the user was present.

Even if someone has a photo on Commons, if they don't have an image on their wiki account, finding the image on Commons and attempting to reveal the wiki account's identity is considered doxing. Just because someone has a photo on Commons doesn't mean it can freely be linked it to their wiki account. The photo might have been uploaded to Commons without their permission and knowledge. Ayqironlik (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologize. I must have made a mistake because I was in stress. The user’s photo was disclosed By Alpasli, not Nataev. But Nataev did not adress the violation in that forum. Instead, he took use of it to discredit the votes. Ayqironlik (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

WikiStipendiya will not continue.

One of Nataev's excuses was that Uzbek Wikimedia users wanted to continue WikiStipendiya without him. But these prejudices did not justify themselves, since one of the creators of this project, Mehrinoz Abbosova, no longer works at the Youth Affairs Agency of the Republic of Uzbekistan ref1, ref2. I have already written that WS has nothing to do with this case, here we want to talk about Nataev's actions, and he simply wanted to confuse the situation by writing about some projects and relationships. I want to remind you that I personally treat Nataev as a friend. It's not about the person, but about the action. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Jamshid, thank you for your information and reminder. --Ghilt (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I believed that WikiStipendiya would not continue, but it seems that another project similar to it has started, although not under the name "WikiStipendiya". I must have been mistaken, and I apologize for that. However, I hope you will also take into account the fact that Jimmy Wales expressed his thanks to a user who claimed to have no connection to WikiStipendiya and stated that they never held any official position in it. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Discord group

Dear U4C team: @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:.

I apologize for bothering you so often, but some of Nataev's words made me write this.

First, Nataev opened a Discord group and wrote it as official without consulting anyone from the User Group. I asked him about this several times, but he could not answer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. He could not show everyone where users voted to make the newly created group official.

Second, he wants to force all users to join the group he created. Because there he has all the levers to oppress, remove from the group, force to leave the group those who do not agree with him. Such was his former group WOULUG. There they oppressed many users who did not agree with him, called them names and forced them to voluntarily leave the group or delete. I sent you many screenshots of how I was oppressed in this group by email.

Third, I explained to him many times why I cannot and do not want to use Discord. I believe that no one has the right to force a person to use any program.

Regarding the photos, as I wrote in the open group, this is not my phone. And I am not going to prove anything to him about the phones, tablets, cameras that I sometimes use. His actions in relation to my or other people's phones, in relation to the city in which I live or sometimes visit, are similar to harassment. And this does not give me pleasure and comfort. I do not want to discuss with anyone the equipment I use and the city in which I live. Today Nataev made me write about my financial shortcomings in the open group, apparently he wanted to humiliate me in front of other users. Yes, I am going through such a period now, but I do not like to openly admit it to others. This is one of the reasons why I cannot use Discord now.

But I do not see any problems in using the Telegram program, it is the most common messenger in Uzbekistan. And all Uzbek-speaking users use Telegram without difficulty. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The german language Wikipedia discord server was also never voted upon. This is not a strong argument to me. Also, you could open your own discord server. Ghilt (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia Discord opens in an authoritarian manner when there is already a group on another platform? Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me remind you that we already have a group for the entire community, there is no need to divide Uzbek-speaking Wikipedians into ours and others. This multiplies our conflicts. For example, we now have to decide on the choice of a candidate who will go to Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2025. Due to disagreements between the groups, we cannot choose one user. I cannot simply close or declare unnecessary our five-year-old Telegram group with 600+ people because of a new Discord group that was secretly opened somewhere. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Nataev himself, as well as other users, took part in opening the Telegram group 5 years ago. For example, the name of the group (@uzwikichat) was suggested to us by Nataev. This group is not alien to him, he is one of the founders of this group. I cannot understand why he now opens various groups that oppose each other. Until yesterday, he was one of the administrators of this group, but for reasons unknown to me, he decided to leave the group in which he did a lot to create it. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There is another side to this issue: Nataev is trying to establish an autocracy in the places he founded, and through this, he puts pressure on those who do not agree with him in various ways, tries to bypass him in decision-making. For example, in the previous Telegram group of Wikimedians of the Uzbek Language User Group, without any discussion, he decided to remove from the group those who had been active on Wikipedia for less than 2 years, and removed several users (for example, me). But as I later learned, he only removed those he wanted, who had not yet completed this task. Some others who had been active for less than 2 years remained in the group. Then he removed User:Mrshaxas from the group for no reason (later he simply claimed that another user's recommendation was the reason for this - silly excuse). He also put various pressures on User:Jamshid Nurqul to remove him from the group, and finally succeeded. I think the reason why he is equating a group that has only recently been opened and has few members with this group that has been around for 5 years, and is tying the Discord page he opened to user group issues, is that he wants to use this Discord page in the future as a continuation of the differences he had in the old Telegram group and, in a sense, achieved. 188.113.198.140 16:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

About the word "tоʻda"

In modern Uzbek the word "tоʻda" means flocks of sheep and other animals.

This word can only mean people in one sense, when it comes to a criminal group: "uyushgan toʻda", "terrorchilar toʻdasi".

In the usual sense the word "tоʻda" is not used, but "sheriklar", "oʻrtoqlar", "tarafdorlar" are used.

The toponyms that Nataev cited were named several centuries ago. Then this word could have had a different meaning, but now it is pure name-calling. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Feedback about the U4C actions motion

Given that this is the first case of systemic failure we are facing, we have decided to allow 7 days of time to gather feedback on the identified measures before we start to vote them.
Feedback is welcomed from all parties, involved users and community members. Please keep your comments to a maximum of 500 words. On behalf of U4C, Civvì (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note that you're welcome to comment either here or under your section on the case page. We'll do our best to take your input into account and adapt our motion accordingly if needed. Thanks,--BRP ^ever 09:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Feeedback from Panpanchik

Dear U4C team: @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:.

This is the first time I am publicly speaking out about this situation. Until now, I have only communicated via email, mainly due to deep fear—specifically of User:Nataev. I have remained silent not because I agreed with the situation, but because I feared retaliation. Unfortunately, even after a Trust & Safety warning, Nataev has continued manipulative behavior. He recently approached several of my close wiki-friends, badmouthing me and claiming that the removal of my user rights was part of his mission to “restore justice” in the Uzbek Wikipedia community. This is what has finally compelled me to speak publicly.

I have personally witnessed multiple cases where Nataev violated both local and global policies. When it served his interests, he turned a blind eye to misconduct. Conversely, when it involved users he disapproved of, even minor and unintentional mistakes were magnified and weaponized against them. No editor can feel safe or free in a system governed by such selective enforcement and personal vendettas.

According to reports circulating on uzwiki, Nataev was also responsible for the dismissal of Laziz Bakhtiyorov. If true, this would represent a gross violation of the Wikimedia principle “No personal attacks,” as well as the local policy “Avoid personal hostility” Causing someone real-world harm by influencing their workplace crosses a red line, and in any functional system, it would justify a block. Yet to date, not a single admin has spoken out about this—presumably because they, too, are afraid of him.

This silence from local leadership only further reinforces the climate of fear. The actions of one person have destabilized the community, driven contributors away, and created a hostile environment. People no longer feel safe to express dissent or raise concerns without fearing retaliation—on-wiki or even beyond.

What’s most alarming is that these patterns of abuse have not only been tolerated but, at times, enabled. The lack of transparent enforcement mechanisms, the absence of checks and balances, and the dependency on a small group of powerful users have made Uzbek Wikipedia deeply vulnerable to manipulation.

I urge the U4C to examine this case not as a matter of individual conflict, but as a systemic failure. This is not about one person losing rights—it is about a culture of fear and the misuse of authority. Restoring balance and trust in the community will require not only immediate action but also long-term oversight and support.

I respectfully request that the U4C take this testimony seriously and ensure that future measures prioritize safety, fairness, and accountability for all contributors—regardless of status or affiliation. Panpanchik (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Panpanchik, we will still be here to accompany the local processes and help if needed. Ghilt (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I never denied recommending to the WikiStipendiya management that Laziz Baxtiyorov be removed, given the extensive documentation of his serious violations. The decision was ultimately made by the managers, who acted on my advice. It’s important to note that I was never officially employed by the Youth Affairs Agency/WikiStipendiya and had no authority over hiring or firing decisions. The agency simply transferred money to me —- through another user’s wife’s account, as I’ve already explained on the main page.

And I find the rhetoric about fear disingenuous, not only because I was on the receiving end of threats of physical violence (of which this user was fully aware) but also because I voluntarily relinquished my advanced rights months ago. Nataev ^talk 15:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that you relinquished your rights not voluntarily, but following the discussion about your violations. Also, after your rude behavior and repeated insults toward me, it is only natural that a sense of fear or aversion toward you would develop.

And I am astonished that no action is being taken against you. Panpanchik (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The vote concluded with eligible users voting against the removal of my rights.

The proposed actions are fair and reasonable. However, if strict measures are to be applied consistently, then other users with far more serious violations should also face consequences. For example:

• Jamshid Nurkulov, who repeatedly threatened to “pull my ass apart”—-a threat that was recorded on audio and which he has not denied.
• Kamol Azzam, who was involved in a physical altercation with Alpasli.
• Several users who falsely accused Alpasli of being gay—-a highly dangerous allegation in Uzbekistan—and made openly homophobic remarks not only to me, but to several other users.
• Multiple users, including yourself, who have personal and professional ties and appear to have coordinated against me, as confirmed by those who witnessed it firsthand.
• Many, many more violations such as doxing, massive CoI editing, MEAT, and CANVASS.

Therefore, I believe the U4C has proposed fair and just motions to address these systemic issues. Nataev ^talk 07:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Anjaniy

Dear U4C team: @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:.

I would like to draw your attention to another important aspect of this situation. Several users who attempted to expose the misconduct of Nataev and his supporters—actions that were clearly against the rules—faced very strict measures. This happened despite the fact that Uzwiki’s local policies were not yet fully developed at the time. I, too, am currently fully blocked from Uzwiki. Since these incidents are closely connected to the current case, I strongly believe they should be reviewed by the U4C.

Previously, I was told that such matters should be left to local editors. However, many editors—such as Panpanchik—are understandably afraid of Nataev and his allies, and often feel pressured to support them in discussions and votes. Given this, I respectfully request that these related cases be reviewed independently, without relying on the involvement of local editors.

Thank you for your attention and understanding. 188.113.241.185 04:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note this user was blocked by another sysop following a comprehensive SPI investigation. Also, the user seems to have misinterpreted the feedback being sought, which should be about the proposed motions. Nataev ^talk 15:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Nataev.

However, I would like to clarify a few important points:

My message was directed to the U4C team, not to engage in a debate with involved individuals. I raised concerns that go beyond my personal block, specifically about how multiple users who criticized misconduct were sanctioned in an environment where local policies were still underdeveloped. These patterns of retaliation deserve careful and independent review.

Referencing the outcome of a local SPI does not address the broader issue I raised: the imbalance of influence and the fear experienced by some editors. Whether or not an SPI was done, it is important to question if the system was fair and free from pressure.

Regarding the purpose of this page: I understand that feedback on the proposed motions is important, but since this case is actively under review and part of the U4C’s pilot process, I believe these related events fall within the scope of their attention. If this is not the correct place, I would appreciate guidance from the U4C members on where and how such concerns can be properly raised.

I remain hopeful that the U4C will consider the full context of this case, including the chilling effect that unchecked local power dynamics can have on a healthy editing environment.

Thank you again. 188.113.219.28 15:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear U4C team: @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:. I am not saying Jamshid Nurkulov did nothing wrong. He made mistakes, and if U4C members think a global block is needed, I respect that. But what makes me confused is that Nataev has a long record of more serious and repeated violations, and still almost no strong action was taken against him.

Some examples from Nataev’s actions:

• Revealing private identities and sharing private chats (UCoC 3.1.5).
• Using ethnic or group insults like “sart” and “WikiStipendiya sheep” (2.2, 3.1.1).
• Pressuring voters and manipulating discussions for his benefit (3.2.3).
• Changing policy texts without consensus (3.3.1).
• Direct personal insults such as “cling like a tick” or “mentally unstable” (3.1.1).

These are not one-time slips but repeated and systematic violations. That is why I kindly ask U4C members to also review Nataev’s case with the same seriousness, otherwise the decisions look not fully consistent. 188.113.204.142 16:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already expressed my dissatisfaction here several times, and as a result they have responded in this way. I advise you not to write to them in a tone of protest, since we see that even demanding justice for the sake of a noble cause can lead to serious consequences. Lately, they have not even responded to any of my emails. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Xoqoni Said

I would like to express my opinion on this situation once again. I was blocked for an indefinite period in a discussion led by Nataev on Uzbek Wikipedia, based on rules that are not fully developed in Uzbek and were applied from another language. This block has been in place for about six months. Additionally, user Nataev shared my personal thoughts and private photos – which were not intended for the public – to the @uzwikichat Telegram group without my consent. Separately, Nataev used the derogatory term “horned sheep” specifically towards me, while terms like “sheep” and “herd of sheep” were used broadly against many users within the community. I have submitted evidence of these insults to Trust & Safety via email. Furthermore, Nataev publicly shared my real name, surname, YouTube videos featuring me, and posts from the Wikistipendiya Telegram channel in the course of this discussion, despite the fact that he has never met me in real life and does not personally know me. This constitutes a serious violation of my personal privacy rights. Moreover, such insulting language and privacy violations have not only been directed at me but have also affected many other users within the Uzbek wiki community. These actions demonstrate a pattern of behavior that undermines a safe and respectful environment. Therefore, I strongly support taking appropriate measures to restrict such conduct. Xoqoni Said (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note this user was blocked by another sysop following a comprehensive SPI investigation. Also, the user too seems to have misinterpreted the feedback being sought, which should be about the proposed motions.

I’ve explained this in great detail over email, but very briefly: I simply forwarded the user’s post, which was about uzwiki, from his public Telegram channel. If it had been a private channel, I wouldn’t have been able to forward it in the first place. Also, all the photos and videos he’s referring to are openly available on WikiStipendiya social media pages, and they clearly identify him by name. Nataev ^talk 16:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear U4C team, I apologize for returning to this page once again. However, since my username was mentioned, I found it appropriate to respond.

I will try to remain as neutral as possible, but once again Nataev demonstrates his usual ability to distort facts. Regardless of what kind of channel it is, he took posts and private photos without subscribing to that channel and distributed them in a public group. As for the offensive words, he simply ignored them.

Regarding the matter with MirzoUlugbek: Dear MirzoUlugbek, I have always respected you, and this will always remain so, since I have no reason to dislike you. However, I kindly ask you to express your opinions without mixing in falsehoods.

Concerning the term “qòy” (“sheep”): dismissing this as just a joke from machine translators is unreasonable. How can a repeatedly used insulting word be considered a joke? In fact, in a Telegram group, Nataev explicitly described me as “not an ordinary sheep, but a horned sheep.” MirzoUlugbek himself witnessed this. This cannot simply be excused as humor.

About the other account I created: When the campaign called “fight against poor machine translation” was initiated by Nataev, I also believed in it. My mistakes were pointed out and added to that list as well. However, among the users I knew personally, there were some who produced even worse machine translations than me, yet I wondered why I had to be on display while they were not. This was not done with any financial benefit in mind. I created another account simply to avoid damaging my personal relations with acquaintances. In December, during the final stage of the Wikimarathon, MirzoUlugbek himself mentioned this new account of mine in the uzwikichat Telegram group and encouraged its activity. Later, I realized that this “fight against poor machine translation” was nothing but nonsense — instead of fixing mistakes, it turned into mocking and humiliating users, especially by Nataev (including on Telegram). For this, I sincerely apologize to the Uzbek Wikipedia community.

I have also been accused of being in alliance with Jamshid Nurqul, but in reality, I have only seen him twice in my life (just like I have seen MirzoUlugbek twice) and have no direct connection with him.

The same user has also written about sockpuppetry and vote manipulation. In fact, when there was a case about removing Nataev’s rights on uzwiki, he encouraged one Wikipedian I know personally to vote against removing his rights (i.e., to support Nataev). I advised him to instead inform T&S via Gmail, but he refused, as Wikicon was approaching and he feared pressure. I have no further knowledge of what happened afterwards. However, it is clear that MirzoUlugbek was involved in mobilizing votes in favor of Nataev during discussions. Likewise, in the discussion about granting CheckUser rights to Nataev, MirzoUlugbek repeatedly called on users in the uzwikichat Telegram group to participate and vote.

In addition, I have evidence that one of the users listed on the “fight against poor machine translation” page was promised by MirzoUlugbek that if they were removed from that list, both they and their team would be sent to the Grand Final and Wikicamp. However, I cannot reveal this user’s identity or username, as it would naturally expose them to pressure.

Another noteworthy detail: MirzoUlugbek himself has frequently written that he does not know English well and often does not understand English terminology. Yet I cannot recall him ever drafting such well-structured, fact-filled statements in discussions. Therefore, I ask you to also consider the possibility that there is another case of puppetry here involving both Nataev and MirzoUlugbek. Xoqoni Said (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Xoqoni Said,

I have boundless respect for you, especially because I had the chance to enjoy the chocolate you sent from Germany for the Chig‘atoy gurungi group (which was headed by Panpanchik: https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:WikiStipendiya_III_marafoni/Jamoalar/Chig%CA%BBatoy_gurungi).

Please recognize that there is a clear difference between inviting users in good faith to take part in a discussion and engaging in canvassing. When I encouraged users to participate in the voting process, I specifically wrote: “vote against if you want, or vote in favor if you want.” Due to the increasing number of rule violations and sockpuppeting on our Wikipedia, there was — and still is — a strong need for CheckUsers. Unfortunately, the rights are now being denied to Nataev and Malikxan, whom I nominated as candidates. Regardless, I have consistently invited newcomers — especially those learning how to contribute to Wikipedia in the camps — to be active in both the forums and voting processes.

You yourself have disclosed your identity on uzwiki; dozens of your photos are publicly available on Commons and the WikiStipendiya Telegram channel. Therefore, your blaming Nataev for merely forwarding your public post about Wikipedia cannot be seen as a good-faith action.

Regarding my use of English — surely you’ve noticed that everyone here is writing in perfect English. That’s thanks to ChatGPT.

It is disingenuous of you to claim that you opposed machine translations in good faith. By disqualifying others from winning cash prizes, you increased your own chances of winning — and indeed, you received 20 million so‘m (approximately $1,600): https://t.me/wikistipendiya/2703

That’s more than three times the average monthly salary in Uzbekistan!

I have always called for unity in the Uzbek community, and I once again urge everyone to come together. No matter what decision the U4C members make here, it should serve as a lesson for our community. M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 03:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback (lack of...)

I find the lack of comments and reactions about our second motion a little surprising so I have tried to add the translations of the motions. I believe that in the second motion we outlined a good work plan to ensure that basic guidelines are discussed and created, and to prevent the current situation from happening again. However, all this can only work if the uzwiki community is willing to collaborate, this is the most important factor. The project was notified about the motions, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could check the translations of the notification and the motions to ensure that the local community can provide informed feedback and comments. Many thanks. Civvì (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This is the link to the local notification --Civvì (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about new contest (moved from case page)

The concept of the new WikiMarathon project has not yet been officially published on any public platforms. It will be announced soon.

If you are interested, feel free to reach out to me at SobirovShoh935@gmail.com. I would be happy to provide more details about the project’s purpose and how it has been newly structured and systematized.

The WikiMarathon initiative is being organized in collaboration between myself and several highly experienced Wikipedians.

Thank you for your interest! 😊 ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Civvì, @Ghilt, @BRPever Please kindly note that the message where user Atayev mentioned me several times contains multiple violations of Wikimedia's safety and conduct policies:

First, he included and shared a Facebook post where Shohjahon Sobirov was presented as the project leader of WikiMarafon. This post was originally published on my personal Facebook account, and the link was posted here without my consent. According to the Wikimedia Privacy Policy and the Universal Code of Conduct, sharing a user's personal information from other platforms without their permission constitutes a violation of privacy. He knows me well and is aware that I am an active contributor to Wikipedia. Instead of tagging me on-wiki, he chose to violate policy.

Second, the author falsely claims that I “hold a grudge” against someone. In fact, we are connected on Facebook and Instagram, and there has never been any personal conflict between us. Accusing me of harboring personal animosity without evidence not only misrepresents me, but also qualifies as a form of harassment and a violation of the Assume Good Faith principle. Additionally, during the local Uzbek Wikipedia discussion related to him, I abstained from voting, maintaining neutrality. Moreover, I have supported his work on multiple occasions within the community.

Third, the remarks about the design or state of my userpage are irrelevant. On Uzbek Wikipedia, there is no formal requirement regarding userpage design or content. Leaving the page blank or customizing it based on personal preference is entirely within a user's rights. Mentioning how many times I blanked my userpage is off-topic and serves only to distract from the main issue.

In general, the tone and content of the original post seem to shift the focus away from the core matter and aim to pressure me through personal insinuations. I respectfully ask that the discussion continue under the principles of the UCoC — with respect, fairness, and a focus on evidence.

Let me be clear: I did not intend to raise these issues initially. However, repeated violations of policy directed toward me have forced me to respond. I sincerely ask for support in helping the Uzbek Wikipedia community remain a space for free and harassment-free editing. :( ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ShohjahonSobirov, to that end, we have proposed a number of motions below to support the Uzbek Wikipedia, and we encourage the community to review them and consider whether they may be helpful. This is a difficult time, as the community appears divided and lacks clear policies and structures to guide its work. With a large-scale event approaching, there is concern that the arrival of many new users may lead to further disruption, given the community’s limited capacity to manage such activity. I hope that the event’s organizers and participants will take the current situation into account and approach their involvement with understanding and care. BRP ^ever 14:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@ShohjahonSobirov, your Facebook post is still set as public. Also, your wiki username includes your real first and last name, so I don’t see how this constitutes a violation of privacy. I’ll leave it to the U4C members to decide. Nataev ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Your recent message states that you “don’t see how this constitutes a violation of privacy” as my Facebook post is public and my Wikimedia username includes my real name.

However, this reasoning does **not comply with Wikimedia's policies on user privacy and consent**.

According to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), especially Section 3.3, all contributors are expected to:

• *"Respect the privacy of others. Contributors must not disclose personal data about others without their clear and explicit consent."*

Even if some information is available publicly (e.g. my real name or public Facebook posts), it **does not** provide **automatic consent** for its use in Wikimedia spaces.

Your decision to share the Facebook post **without my permission** and use it in an active discussion is a breach of this principle. You could have instead notified me via my user talk page or used a ping (@) to seek clarification respectfully.

Per Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy, linking to off-wiki activity in a way that could cause harassment or misrepresentation is considered disruptive.

I kindly ask the committee to consider this within the context of UCoC and Wikimedia's global standards for user safety and respectful interaction. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@User:ShohjahonSobirov the link has been removed, no need to spend more time on that. I added some comments and a question on the bottom of this page, maybe we can move on and focus on those? Many thanks --Civvì (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Civvì, @BRPever. My name is Shohjahon. I am currently serving as the manager of the newly organized WikiMarathon project initiated by the Youth Affairs Agency of Uzbekistan. Recently, there have been several disputes and the spread of misleading information within the Uzbek Wikipedia (uzwiki) community.

It is true that various mistakes occurred during the implementation of the general WikiStipendiya project. However, there have also been numerous achievements, including increases in article views, the number of active users, overall users, total edits, and article count.

A person who has recently shared negative opinions about the WikiStipendiya project with the global Wikimedia community has, in fact, been one of the main organizers of the project. I was not part of the organizing team during Seasons 1 and 2, but I did participate as an organizer in Season 3. The claim that Atayev did not receive a salary from the project is inaccurate. He was indeed employed and paid during the third season, which was financially supported by the Youth Affairs Agency. Based on this, it is possible that he received payments during the earlier seasons as well. To clarify this, I suggest reaching out to the managers of the first season, who may possess relevant documentation.

Additionally, nearly all pages related to the project on Uzbek Wikipedia were created by Atayev himself. On the WikiStipendiya project page, he introduced himself as “one of the Wikimedia editors who developed the concept of the ‘WikiStipendiya’ project and a founder of the Wikimedians of Uzbek Language User Group.” He also appeared in official educational video materials produced by the Agency.

These facts suggest that he may bear partial responsibility for the internal conflicts that led to the project's breakdown. That said, I prefer not to disclose further details, as unity within the Uzbek Wikipedia community is of great importance to me.

Unfortunately, several promising contributors ceased their editing activities due to pressure and division within the community. I kindly urge the relevant bodies to take appropriate action regarding the user who is attempting to polarize the community.

I originally did not intend to share my personal views on this matter. However, as I was tagged and mentioned, and as the current project manager, I feel obliged to express my opinion and clarify my position. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Whoever claimed that I didn’t receive a salary or that I wasn’t heavily involved in developing the original concept of the project? I’ve already disclosed the salaries I received, the duration for which I received them, and even who transferred the funds to my account. Nataev ^talk 14:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already shared my perspective on this matter. Regarding the claim that you were not compensated during the first and second seasons of the WikiStipendiya project, this can be objectively verified by reaching out to the relevant project managers. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

By all means! I certainly hope the WikiStipendiya management has some documentation, as I never signed anything, not even for the salaries I received. Given that the funds were presumably public money, this lack of documentation struck me as highly unusual. Nataev ^talk 15:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to emphasize that I have merely expressed my personal opinion. In my view, if an objective review is conducted, I trust that the relevant facts and evidence will be provided. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@User:ShohjahonSobirov I have moved the discussion to this page, the section you edited is called "Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members" you are not a party listed in the case page. I do not think that we will need to reach out to you, I am sure that we will be able to read all the details about the organization of this new initiative on uzwiki, in this moment one of the most important things for uzwiki and the community is transparency, I am sure you understand that and am confident that you will manage the contest and the related pages accordingly. Can you please start listing who the other highly experienced involved users are? Thanks. Civvì (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, the organizational team is in the process of signing the official documentation. Once the involved users officially begin their work, I will inform you accordingly — both on this page and on the relevant public pages. Thank you for your understanding. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever, @Civvì I would like to formally inform you of recent developments that I believe are important in the context of our current situation.

After I responded to claims suggesting that I harbored personal animosity, I noticed that Ataev unilaterally removed me from all connections on social media platforms and subsequently deleted all our past Telegram conversations. This action followed my objection to the sharing of personal information—such as links to my social media profiles—without my explicit consent. For reference, Wikimedia's privacy and behavioral policies emphasize that consent and respectful conduct must be observed when disclosing user-related information.

Throughout our collaboration, I always communicated with Ataev with goodwill and transparency. I frequently consulted him before initiating any new initiatives within Wikimedia projects, and I have records of these discussions. Based on these interactions and the recent events, I have developed doubts about his intentions being entirely collaborative or constructive. This is my personal observation, but I believe it is relevant to share.

I felt it was important to bring this to the attention of the UCoC team in case it may contribute to a broader understanding of the situation. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I confirm that I’ve unfriended him after he himself reminded above that we were connected not only on Facebook but Instagram as well. Needless to say, it’s entirely within my rights to decide whom I want to be friends with on social media, and this has absolutely no bearing on collaboration within wiki projects. Nataev ^talk 17:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@User:ShohjahonSobirov and @User:Nataev no, sorry, but your use of social media and who you friend or unfriend is not relevant to the case. I would be grateful if you could limit the comments on this page to proposals that add value or maybe try to provide constructive feedback on our motions. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@ShohjahonSobirov Have you held any community discussion or sought consensus before launching the event, or is it still under consideration? Since it is going to affect the community, I believe it is fair to discuss it with the community before proceeding with a large-scale event. Is it being done in collaboration with any affiliate? BRP ^ever 22:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever Thank you for your question and for sharing your concerns. At present, we have thoroughly reviewed and formalized the work together with two experienced Uzbek Wikipedia editors.

Articles are prepared through a specially developed system, currently running in test mode, based on three stages — Translation, Editing, and Presentation. All contributions are added in line with Wikipedia’s policies. This process ensures full compliance with core rules such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Notability. Furthermore, within the framework of the project, any article intended for the Uzbek Wikipedia is first reviewed and filtered through this system before being published on Wikipedia. This system also provides the ability to monitor a wide range of new users.

In addition, a dedicated project page has already been created on Uzbek Wikipedia: Vikipediya:WikiMarafon. An official website for the project will also be launched soon, while current updates are being shared through our social media channels.

We would also like to stress that there is no reason for concern. Considering the current state of the Uzbek Wikipedia, all project activities are being carried out strictly in line with Wikipedia’s policies by the project team. Numerous letters and messages we have received show that the wider Uzbek community strongly supports initiatives that develop Wikipedia and does not want such projects to come to a halt.

At the same time, I am concerned that — as has unfortunately occurred in my own case — new project staff and newcomers to Wikipedia may face harassment or pressure. Harassment and intimidation are contrary to Wikipedia’s principles, and I would kindly request that those engaging in such behavior be strictly sanctioned in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies.

Our ultimate goal is to ensure a free, open, and constructive editing environment on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a platform that belongs to everyone. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@ShohjahonSobirov can you please link to the local discussion about this project? I don't know what you mean with the "wider" Uzbek community, normally initiatives are discussed onwiki by the community of editors. For the sake of accuracy, you are right, Wikipedia content is freely available to everyone (according to the license), so we can say that it "belongs to everyone", but this does not fully apply to the platform/tech infrastructure :-) --Civvì (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Civvì, @BRPever

I respect your opinions, but in the current situation, I do not consider holding a local discussion about the new project to be the right approach. At present, the Uzbek Wikipedia is divided into many groups.

In addition, launching a new WikiProject on Wikipedia does not require a prior mandatory discussion. As stated in the WikiProject guidelines:

“Groups of like-minded editors may start new WikiProjects at any time and are encouraged, but not obligated, to propose them before doing so.”

This means that proposals are recommended but not compulsory. Therefore, starting a new project or subproject does not necessarily require a local discussion.

In the new project, we have developed a dedicated workflow system to manage the flow of users and, in addition, to prevent low-quality content. The system works as follows:

• First, professional translators prepare draft translations of selected articles and submit them to the system.
• Then, editors review these drafts and refine them according to the Manual of Style.
• Finally, the completed article is submitted through the system to a Wikipedia editor with an account there, who performs an additional review to ensure quality. In this way, reliable content is produced, and newcomers gradually gain experience.

In the preparation phase of the new project, I also consulted with several experienced contributors, including administrators, to ensure that the system aligns with Wikipedia’s rules and practices.

Of course, throughout the project, all contributions will follow core Wikipedia principles such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and other relevant policies.

A project page has been created on the Uzbek Wikipedia. You may review it.

You asked what I meant by the ‘wider’ Uzbek community. After we announced the project on various platforms, active contributors of the Uzbek Wikipedia expressed their willingness to participate and have been sending us their suggestions through our official email.

In the near future, a large-scale press conference for the project is also planned. At the event, we will invite both experienced contributors and those interested in Wikipedia, and present our project.

I hope the community will support this initiative and that constructive feedback will be shared on the project page and its talk section.

--ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

My read on enwiki policy on wikiproject is that it encourages people to propose while it not being obligatory. I am unsure if uzbek wiki even has that policy. That said, this is a large-scale event on a relatively small project, and choosing not to propose it in order to avoid scrutiny makes me question whether the existing community actually supports it. This could also lead to disagreements in the future. I feel like as organisers you should listen to wider community, and not just few who reach out to you in support. BRP ^ever 05:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Your concerns are indeed very important and valid. Our project is fully open and transparent, where any user can freely express their opinion. For this purpose:

A project page exists on Wikipedia: uz:Vikipediya:WikiMarafon

The project’s social pages are active

A separate Telegram bot for communication has also been launched

In other words, everything is public and any user can participate. In addition, we are planning to hold a press conference and an online meeting with users in the near future. At that time, everything can be discussed openly.

It should also be noted that this new project does not directly use Wikipedia — a special external system has been established for this purpose. However, all processes are being carried out in accordance with Wikipedia’s rules. In other words, new users are not directed to edit Wikipedia directly as in the previous project. Instead, they are first provided with opportunities to improve their skills through the system.

We are always open to questions and suggestions. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Laziz Baxtiyorov

In my personal view, the measures issued by the UCoC Coordinating Committee appear rather lenient and read more like a warning than a firm sanction. Yet, when a long-standing user who is well-versed in Wikimedia policies and principles has been shown to repeatedly and deliberately violate core rules, a stronger response would have been justified.

User Nataev has engaged in consistent doxing of other contributors. For example, in this discussion, he invalidated votes from users opposing my removal as an administrator merely on the basis that they were personally acquainted with me. Additionally, he publicly shared photos from users' profiles on commons.wikimedia.org in a highly inappropriate manner — a clear violation of UCoC §3.3.

Upon reviewing the case discussion, it appears that investigators primarily focused on the Uzbek Wikipedia community at large, while overlooking serious and well-documented policy violations committed by Nataev, a long-time and influential editor. Moreover, the conclusion suggests that stricter action was not taken due to an alleged lack of adequate local policies on Uzbek Wikipedia. However, in practice, Nataev has repeatedly invoked English Wikipedia policies in order to block or remove rights from multiple users, including User:Xoqoni Said, User:Anjaniy, User:MrShaxas, User:Panpanchik, and myself.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the UCoC Committee to reconsider and strengthen the proposed measures, or — if such policy inconsistencies are acknowledged — to also retract or annul the sanctions imposed on users like myself who were penalized under vague or selectively applied standards.

Thank you for your attention. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

These are only the initial steps toward restoring the health of the wiki. We do intend to discuss and review your block at a later stage, maybe in parallel with or following the second part of the motion. Our primary focus is to make Uzbek wiki capable of making these decisions by itself. BRP ^ever 16:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to kindly note that just two days ago this user contacted me on Telegram offering “to forget past misunderstandings”. I didn’t react but duly shared his message in its entirety with the U4C over email. It’s interesting to see he first tried to reach out to me personally before writing here. Nataev ^talk 16:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

When I contacted Nataev directly via Telegram, I did not use any offensive language or threats. I simply reached out after learning that he had been sharing negative remarks about me — both with users who personally know me and in the Uzbek Wikimedians user group. While we may appear to be on opposite sides in on-wiki discussions, my intent was to suggest that we not allow these editorial disagreements to affect our personal lives, and instead focus our shared energy on improving the Uzbek Wikipedia.

I believe that sending a friendly message via Telegram is not prohibited by Wikipedia’s policies. However, if my message was unwelcome or misunderstood, I sincerely apologize and am willing to delete it.I also respectfully ask Nataev to avoid interpreting every interaction in the most negative light, and to assume good faith by focusing on the broader, constructive goals we all share. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Rest assured that we haven’t discussed you in the WOULUG Telegram group. Also, posting disparaging comments two days after contacting me personally and not getting a response reveals the insincerity of your intent. Your message also included language that, to me, amounted to an admission of wrongdoing on your part. That’s why I duly shared it with the U4C. Nataev ^talk 22:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my Telegram message as either insincere or an "admission of wrongdoing." There was nothing in that message that could reasonably be read that way — and if necessary, I am willing to publish it openly. The message was simply an attempt to ease personal tensions and suggest cooperation toward our shared goals within the project. It was not intended to deflect criticism or avoid accountability within Wikipedia.

Secondly, even when two users hold opposing views in on-wiki discussions, Wikimedia policies explicitly allow for personal, respectful communication. Section §1.2 of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) — Assume good faith — emphasizes the importance of open dialogue and encourages peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Thirdly, mischaracterizing the tone or intent of a private message — especially when it was written in a neutral and constructive manner — is concerning. Section §3.1 of the UCoC prohibits "intentionally misrepresenting others or framing conversations in a malicious way."

Furthermore, I possess screenshots showing that you personally discussed me on at least two occasions in the WOULUG Telegram group and another channel, including statements where you encouraged a user to report someone to the police and even expressed willingness to testify if needed. If the committees are open to receiving further evidence, I am prepared to submit these materials to the UCoC and Trust & Safety teams for review. I trust they will evaluate the materials thoroughly and issue appropriate conclusions.

Section §3.3 of the Universal Code of Conduct — Harassment: Disclosure of personal data — clearly prohibits the unauthorized discussion, dissemination, or use of private information to cause real-world consequences, which constitutes a serious violation.

Given the current situation, I believe it is necessary to refrain from issuing misleading statements or adopting a threatening stance toward others. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

What prevented you from engaging in “respectful communication” and open dialogue here on Meta instead of using Telegram? In any case, I’ll leave it to the committee to judge the tone and intention behind your message.

As I’ve already mentioned, we’re open to granting the U4C access to our WOULUG group if they wish.

I’m also not sure why you’re bringing up the issue of disclosing private data, as simply stating that you contacted me privately doesn’t constitute such a disclosure.

Finally, it’s rather ironic that you speak of assuming good faith and resolving conflicts peacefully when there is overwhelming evidence that you’ve created socks to mock at least two users and have engaged in extensive MEAT and CANVASS, as another user recently summarized quite clearly. Nataev ^talk 03:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Laziz Baxtiyorov, I looked into the details of prior RFC that caused you to be blocked, and few other local discussion. I recommend you open a new clean case with you two as a party so we can take a clear look.-- BRP ^ever 11:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I’m open to starting a clean case as proposed and will proceed accordingly. I appreciate your willingness to take a closer look. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Kamol Azzam

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to the U4C members for agreeing to consider this appeal and for taking the time to provide solutions they deem appropriate.

However, as the initiator who brought this case to U4C's attention, I felt it necessary to share some thoughts before the final conclusion.

Specifically, when I reported this issue, it was not directed at the entire Uzbek Wikipedia community, but rather at a single user who had abused their authority. Nevertheless, Nataev's skillful efforts to muddle the facts and create artificial obstacles for the U4C team's review of the case seem to have yielded results: now the focus has shifted from addressing one person's violations to improving the existing management system of the entire UzWiki. Indeed, this was an important and necessary step, but had it been presented as a supplementary recommendation and addressed alongside the main issues, I believe it would have been easier to achieve a freer environment.

Naturally, these are my personal opinions and expectations. The current situation is causing me to hesitate - whether to continue editing Uzbek Wikipedia and be prepared for systematic, organized pressures, or to cease my activities and switch to an entirely different project after a short break. In any case, I extend my gratitude to everyone who showed concern for this matter and worked to ensure that the case was reviewed openly, transparently, and fairly. Kamol Azzam (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kamol Azzam, thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and want to clarify that this is not a final conclusion, but rather a starting point that allows the U4C to become more involved and begin addressing the challenges the community is currently facing. Our goal is to support the development of a community that can resolve matters independently, without external intervention. Achieving that takes time, and there is no quick or simple solution. We plan to observe the situation over an extended period and intervene if/when necessary. During this time, we also intend to address several smaller issues in parallel. BRP ^ever 08:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Erkinoy

I have reviewed the UCoC case conclusion. First of all, I sincerely thank you for the time and attention devoted to evaluating such a complex and sensitive situation, as well as for taking appropriate steps based on the findings.

Both the Trust & Safety team and members of the Uzbek Wikipedia community are well aware of the events I personally experienced. I remain grateful for the timely attention given to my complaint and for the action taken against those deemed responsible.

However, I must now raise a serious concern that was recently brought to my attention by a trusted acquaintance. This matter impacts not only my own emotional well-being and sense of safety, but also that of several other users. According to a screenshot I submitted via email, user Nataev sent a message to another user in which he placed full blame on me for the past harrassment committed by Alpasli, and explicitly stated that his goal was to have Alpasli unblocked.

My acquaintance confirmed that this message referred to me, referencing an earlier incident in the WOULUG Telegram group where Nataev had revealed the identity behind the “Erkinoy” account. They added that they personally viewed the message before it was deleted. This contradicts Nataev’s earlier statement that the message had been deleted before anyone could see it.

Additionally, based on the screenshot I received, it appears that user Nataev expressed frustration over the participation of users such as Panpanchik and Jamshid Nurkulov in the Wikimania 2025 event, openly stating that he was unable to “get rid of them.”

Given the circumstances, I respectfully request that the Trust & Safety team and other responsible parties treat this matter with the seriousness it warrants, and take appropriate steps to ensure the emotional and physical safety of the individuals named above during the upcoming event.

Furthermore, I kindly ask the U4C team to reconsider the submitted evidence in full and to carefully re-evaluate the disciplinary actions in this case. I believe this situation goes beyond individual conflicts and is contributing to a wider atmosphere of division within the Uzbek Wikipedia community. Erkinoy (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure which acquaintance you’re referring to, but I’ve refrained from commenting on your case. From the very beginning, I’ve maintained that such matters are best handled by the T&S team due to their seriousness.

Regarding the time I accidentally typed the first half of your username in our private Telegram group months ago, I’ve already apologized and clarified that there are over half a dozen users with that same first name.

I’ve also refrained from discussing the uzwiki case in private channels and social media groups. We’ve followed a similar approach in the WOULUG Telegram group, and we’re open to granting the U4C access to it should they wish.

I want to make it clear that I haven’t tried to remove anyone, nor is it within my rights or intentions to do so. The U4C is currently seeking feedback on the proposed motions, not a repetition of previously reviewed accusations or new claims based on hearsay. For that reason, I respectfully ask that you refrain from making baseless accusations. Nataev ^talk 07:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Nataev, I appreciate your active response to the situation and understand your dedication to ensuring that there is no change in the final results. However, my statement relates to the very outcome, and it appears to me that the doxing action you took against me was not accidental. I consider it appropriate to be concerned about this. Moreover, it's worth noting that it was because of you that my identity was revealed and I was put in a difficult situation when I tried to communicate with local Wikipedia administrators via email during the initial actions. Therefore, I strongly urge you not to give a misleading tone to my thoughts.

I also request that the respected U4C members and other active community editors consider my statement not as an act of revenge, but as a voluntary effort aimed at protecting the identity, dignity, and honor of other Uzbek Wikipedia activists in the future.

In conclusion, I must also state that the evidence relating to the aforementioned facts was sent at least 10 days before U4C stopped accepting evidence for the case. Dear U4C members, understanding that this is a very long, complicated situation that the Uzbek Wikipedia community has fallen into due to gaps in self-governance, and that your work in this situation is extremely complex, I ask you to review the presented evidence once again and reconsider your official conclusions, also with the aim of establishing a more effective system in the future. Sincerely, Erkinoy (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC).

Just because an honest mistake doesn’t seem accidental to you doesn’t make it intentional, does it? As I’ve stated multiple times, I accidentally typed the first part of your username in a closed group of trusted members and immediately redacted the message.

Also, note that some aspects of the uzwiki case have been reviewed by the T&S team, who have a much clearer understanding of the situation due to the evidence shared with them privately.

Finally, as some U4C members have pointed out, the goal isn’t to chase down every individual mistake or misstep, but to help the community grow healthier by learning to prevent such incidents and by resolving them constructively when they do arise. That’s why I’m not alarmed by the fact that users who have actually threatened me with violence or falsely reported me to the police (preventing my participation in a conference I helped organize) are not facing severe sanctions. The long-term development and well-being of the community matter more to me. Nataev ^talk 18:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I just want to mention it as a reminder: I, Anjaniy, also know who this user is. At first, I thought that only I and a few other users knew, but when I asked a couple of other editors, they also knew who this user is. 188.113.252.181 15:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

As I’ve probably stated a dozen times by now, it was impossible to identify her full username because I had accidentally typed only the first half of her name, which is shared by over half a dozen users, and I immediately redacted the message. If you somehow know her full name, it may have been leaked through other channels, such as the other sysops she contacted via email or people who were present at the WikiCamp, among others. Nataev ^talk 15:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The editor who told me about this matter stated that he became aware of it only after the message YOU have written. It should be noted that, within a certain period of time, any administrator of a Telegram group can view an edited message. In this case, the message will not be able to lighten your work. 188.113.240.39 14:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As I’ve explained, that person could have seen only the first half of the username. Disclosing even this partial information to you constitutes a privacy violation on their part, as they were a member of a closed group.

P.S. You could be a random person. Since you’re only blocked on uzwiki, it would be more prudent to comment here on Meta while logged in to your account. Nataev ^talk 14:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear user, I don't know when and where your incident with Alpasli occurred. However, why are you persistently blaming Nataev? Was Nataev a witness to this? Now, if the incident you claim truly happened, why did you wait to write about it until just before launching an attack on Nataev years later, instead of reporting it at that time? I vaguely recall the timing of this incident's dissemination, and it was not Nataev but Laziz Baxtiyorov and other admins who began spreading it in their efforts to have Alpasli dismissed from the agency, accusing him of being a sycophant and a homosexual. Before that, you were in phone contact with Alpasli, you went to several camps together, conversed, and you even joined us multiple times in cafes when our team collectively made fun of him.

Regarding Jamshid’s and others' statement that Nataev used the word "sheep", it was actually said by our admins earlier. I have video evidence of this, but Jamshid, with lies, is only finding the word "sheep” in every one of Nataev's words just to demonize him. Even for simple words like "group," he's claiming Nataev said "a flock of sheep" and confusing the committee members.

I respect you all. However, if you’re willing to go this far, let's go all the way. If U4C members permit, let's show the videos and audio I have on open platforms. Let's provide them to investigative websites.

I repeat once again, you are like younger siblings to me; I bear no ill will towards you, and I have not experienced any harm from you, nor have I caused you any harm. Let's not confuse the U4C team by including incidents that have absolutely no connection to the case, and let's not involve the Uzbek nation, language, and Wikipedians in our internal affairs in this way. If the incident involving Alpasli and you truly happened, the employees of the Agency for Youth Affairs are to blame. Not Nataev, who is in Canada. Why didn't they expel Alpasli from the camp at that time? They did exclude Umarxon from the camp after he lost his rights after all. At the Ibrat Farzandlari camp you are claiming, both Alpasli and you attended not merely as ordinary Wikipedia participants but as coordinators. Why didn't you immediately inform the head coordinator and others? If you wanted no one to know this, why were you OK with many people discussing and spreading it at the time? Most Uzbek users here know about this incident. They know about it through other admins, not through Nataev. M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 08:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Mirzoulugʻbek, you have blamed me personally for the incident that took place, accused Laziz Baxtiyorov of provocation, and also blamed the T&S team for drawing conclusions based on rumors, all in an extremely lenient manner. While reading what you wrote, several questions arose for me:

You mentioned that you were aware of an incident of assault involving a user at the camp you referred to. Why did you not request action to be taken at that very time?

I have heard you boast more than once that Nataev resolves all matters on UzWiki, and that only you can influence Nataev’s decisions and persuade him to act. If you were not confident in your own ability to take action, why did you not tell Nataev and urge him to act?

I heard that, on the eve of the camp organized in the autumn of 2023, there were attempts to remove Alpasli. At that time, you were the project administrator, as well as Kagansky, Laziz Baxtiyorov, and Jamshid Nurqul. I request that you provide detailed information on this matter.

I have witnessed Nataev repeatedly emphasizing with anger that an article about anilingus was created from an account allegedly belonging to Laziz Baxtiyorov, using this to strengthen his argument and to make most people see Laziz Baxtiyorov as guilty. Similarly, I recall that when a participant named Muhammadali once expressed an extremely radical reaction to the use of explicit images in sex-related articles on UzWiki—claiming that this could even lead to UzWiki being blocked in Uzbekistan—Nataev became very angry and managed to have this person completely removed from the project. Why was such dedication and strictness applied to those two users, but not in a situation similar to mine?

When guilt has been fully proven, why is Nataev accusing me of assault while advocating for Alpasli’s unblocking because “he has been of great benefit”? Was this “benefit” for Nataev personally or for the project? Please clarify this as well.

Thank you for your attention. Erkinoy (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Erkinoy, please leave me out of this. As I’ve repeatedly stated, including yesterday, I fully respect the T&S decision on this matter, and am neither willing nor able to seek to overturn any action taken against Alpasli by them.

As for Muhammadali, I recall him threatening verbally to have uzwiki blocked in Uzbekistan again. I, along with other WikiSitpendiya team members, obviously raised concern about this Youth Agency worker’s statement, and the agency took whatever action they thought was appropriate. You seem to forget that I was never officially employed by the project, nor am I a citizen of Uzbekistan.

I wish these endless threads based on hearsay and animosity would end. The whole case has gone on for long enough, and it’s time to seek to return to what we originally came here for: quality content creation. Nataev ^talk 12:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear user, I repeat once again that I respect you. I first heard about your situation along with the claims of Alpasli being gay and other slanders. It is not right for you to write falsely accusing Nataev based on someone else’s instigation. You say that behind Muhammadali’s punishment for saying he would have Wikipedia blocked in Uzbekistan was also Nataev. Let me assure you that Jamshid Nurkulov and others expressed the same opinion on this issue at the time.

This happened when they were returning from the Jizzakh trip. Jamshid and Panpanchik wanted to sit next to each other, which led to an argument with Muhammadali, who insisted, “I will sit in this seat.” At that point, Jamshid threatened Muhammadali, saying he would file a complaint against him. Muhammadali replied, “If you want to go, then go in this seat; if not, it’s up to you.” Jamshid and Panpanchik ended up stranded on the Jizzakh–Tashkent road. After that, Jamshid, still resentful toward Muhammadali, filed several complaints to get him removed from the project. So what more do you want to accuse Nataev of?

As for the incident you are referring to in your claim, I only learned about it in 2024. If you say the admins didn’t take any action, then don’t blame me (a Kyrgyz citizen who at the time was in my own country) or Nataev (who was in Canada at the time) while forgetting about the admins from IbratWiki. What did Laziz, Jamshid, and the admins who were there do at that time?

It seems that your goal, and that of those who are giving you instructions, is solely to smear Nataev and take revenge on him at any cost. They are even shifting their own wrongdoings onto Nataev in an attempt to tarnish his image in the the eyes of the Wikimedia community. M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 03:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Jamshid Nurkulov

I would like to thank the U4C team for diverting the topic from the root cause of the issue and generalizing it. However, if it is considered that more than one person should be punished for this matter, then I believe that Nataeva and Muxriddin Azimov should also be included among those receiving punishment.

1. On or around March 19, in the UzWiki administrators’ group, Nataeva openly allowed meatpuppeting in order to gather votes against Nataev’s removal from adminship; the proof of this has been sent to you. Moreover, Nataeva is Nataev’s spouse, and her actions also constitute a conflict of interest.

2. Muxriddin Azimov engaged in sockpuppeting by contacting several users to ask them to vote in support of Nataev. There is evidence of him messaging several users with such requests. Some users who did not comply later received messages from Nataev himself.

Despite the fact that this and similar evidence has been sent to you, it is somewhat surprising that you are concluding the case one-sidedly, punishing users who had little or nothing to do with the matter whenever possible. I had already guessed who has strong sympathies for whom back when work for the Tashkent WikiCon was halted, and those guesses have proven correct to this day.

In any case, thank you—for the sake of all the evidence I could not upload to the open network and which is now wasted! Thanks! Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I was also a member of the admin Telegram group when Nataeva wrote a general plea for the community to stop attacking me. I personally deleted her message when I saw it, explaining that, even though it was broad, it could still be viewed as a CoI. I hope your screenshot included my explanation for deleting it. She’s never repeated that request, nor has she commented on the case anywhere, on wiki or off.

I’m not aware of Muxriddin Azimov’s conduct, but if anyone has engaged in mass MEAT and CANVASS, it is Jamshid Nurkulov (as well as Laziz Baxtiyorov and Panpanchik), along with their flatmates, colleagues at the Youth Affairs Agency, and personal associates, ample evidence of which has already been supplied to the U4C.

If anything is surprising, it is that you have gotten away with repeated threats to “tear my ass” if I visited Uzbekistan.

P.S. Earlier, you confidently claimed that WikiStipendiya would not continue and that it had nothing to do with this case. You couldn’t have been more wrong, could you? Nataev ^talk 08:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If you allow, let’s discuss each comment according to its specific topic, and open separate threads for other topics so we don’t get distracted from the subject! Here, I am clearly stating that two specific administrators have abused their powers. And I am emphasizing that they have a direct connection to the overall matter. By the time you corrected Nataeva’s mistake, quite a lot of time had already passed; regardless of who corrected it, a mistake is still a mistake. Muxriddin Azimov and Nataeva are adults who are capable of answering for themselves. I am not trying to hold you personally accountable for each of them. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear U4C members: @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:, please also pay attention to this comment so that the essence of the topic is not completely distorted... Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no punishment for any party at this stage. I believe you may have misunderstood the role of the U4C, and I would encourage you to review our charter before making these remarks. The proposed motion is intended to enable the community to establish its own rules, elect its own administrators, and resolve disputes in a systematic manner. While these processes are being developed, we can discuss whether further measures are necessary.

It is generally not the role of the U4C to make routine decisions for your community; however, in cases of serious UCoC violations or when local processes are unable to address the matter effectively, we may intervene. Our primary goal is to support your community in becoming capable of addressing these issues independently. If imposing sanctions on certain users is necessary to support that goal and uphold the UCoC, we may consider it, but such actions are not our primary objective. BRP ^ever 12:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. While I understand that you are not responsible for the enforcement of penalties, I am puzzled by the removal of two other admins who were systematic rule breakers from all lists, but the addition of Muzaffar Murоdovich and Miss Kamola, who had nothing to do with the matter at hand. This reinforces my doubts that the evidence emailed to the U4C team was even read. Once again, thank you for your attention, and I apologize if I misunderstood your work. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If you read closely, the motions are only temporary for all parties involved until a common voting criterion (and canvassing guidelines) is agreed upon. I would generally discourage any advanced permission elections until we have a basic system in place for how such matters will be handled going forward. Given all the canvassing concerns raised, I believe this is the most logical course of action. BRP ^ever 13:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Rest assured that the two administrators I mentioned above have committed enough systematic violations to be included in the list under the temporary measures you are referring to. Since users who have committed less serious offenses than they have been included in the list, I see no reason not to include them as well in these temporary measures. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally speaking I am really disappointed. We spent a huge amount of time reading, thinking and drafting what in our opinion are useful proposals to help the uzbek community to equip itself with useful guidelines, in order to be able to deal with conflicts and possibily to manage other writing contests. On the other hand we are continuosly reading about personal situations and personal fights. I am starting to wonder whether we should really take more drastic measures against all those who, in various ways, have been involved in the different conflicts, maybe this will allow the rest of the community to work constructively. --Civvì (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I also believe that serious measures should be taken against all users involved in the matter, as well as all administrators who, despite being aware of everything, took no action. The best course of action would be to revoke all rights from all administrators on Uzwiki, appoint administrators from among global sysops, refrain from electing local administrators for Uzwiki until all rules are fully developed, and set the administrator term to six months. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Many of your problems stem from content disputes, which GS rarely become involved in. There are several factors that should be considered before taking any steps. My goal in seeking feedback was to gather constructive ideas for improving the situation, but the persistent attempts to undermine one another have left me quite disappointed. I believe this is a significant obstacle to the wiki’s future improvement. BRP ^ever 13:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that as long as some active contributors are wrongfully blocked while the real offenders are not even included in the temporary measures list, it will be impossible to find a constructive solution. As you said, in order to find an optimal solution, it is necessary to fairly assess the mistakes made by the contributors whose cases are being reviewed today, revoke the decisions made in violation of rules and due process, and at the very least include in the list those users whose guilt is supported by evidence, in order to balance fairness and justice among users. At present, implementing new measures without taking into account the violations committed by Nataev and the team under his command, and without overturning their mistakes, will inevitably increase the discontent of users who have long been systematically oppressed. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point again; we are not judges or arbitrators. In any case, thank you for your feedback. We will discuss it internally to determine whether we can adapt some of it into our motion. BRP ^ever 14:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not need a judge or arbitrators — I need the truth. Even if I end up being permanently blocked after reaching the truth, that is fine. I am not here to judge everyone, but to explain that even a temporary decision will not be fair until the two users whose guilt has been proven are also included in the temporary measures list. Thank you for your attention. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
who had nothing to do with the matter at hand — they had everything to do with the chaos that unfolded on uzwiki. Please note that a large portion of this case is being handled privately. That’s why your conclusion about supposedly uninvolved users is wrong. Also note that the evidence submission phase has long ended, as has the timeline originally suggested by the U4C for gathering feedback on the proposed motions.

The proposed motions are broad, fair, and aimed at preventing similar incidents from recurring. I believe many of the involved users have learned from this experience and are unlikely to engage again in outrageous violations (such as your physical threats, fighting at wikicamps, making false police reports against users, etc.). Therefore, I reiterate that the proposed motions are the best course of action when all is said and done. Nataev ^talk 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but in this statement I was addressing the U4C members, and I think it would be best to leave the decision to them. It has been several months since the evidence was sent, and if, due to some internal correspondence, the evidence I submitted is not taken into account, it would certainly be an injustice. I trust that among the U4C members there will be someone who will hear my voice and understand me correctly. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Irrefutable evidence of violations by your close associates, including a flatmate, was also submitted to the U4C, but they are not mentioned in the proposed motions either. This is because the U4C has reviewed the case in its entirety.

The decision will indeed ultimately rest with the U4C, which is a relief, given that the uzwiki community has shown itself incapable of reaching a fair outcome (with flatmates, colleagues, and personal ties as well as huge money involved). I have no doubt the U4C has heard from all sides, including those who have only appeared here to comment yet have made no contributions to WMF projects since before March. Nataev ^talk 14:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we opened a separate thread for our never-ending debate about each other. It is clear that your hostility toward me began after I mentioned in a discussion that your friend Alpasli had committed sexual assault against girls. This alone shows how impartial you really are. Although Alpasli’s guilt has been acknowledged by the Trust & Safety team, you and your close associates have not accepted it, as can be seen from your various comments. Let’s not confuse the specific topic at hand here — for other accusations, let’s simply open a separate thread with its own subject. 15:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC) Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, please. As I’ve repeatedly said, I did the right thing by directing the people involved to contact T&S, and I do not question any actions they’ve taken.

Once clear guidelines are in place and the community is capable of addressing its own challenges, every matter can be reviewed (including your use of two sock accounts to publish other users’ work, which is a direct violation of the WMF Terms of Use.) Nataev ^talk 15:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, we need a separate thread for such accusations. Both you and I have plenty of different accusations against each other. In your opinion, over the past nine years, Uzbeks (those living in Uzbekistan) have remained as people with full pants, empty heads, yet still proud and cotton-picking — I have no doubt about that. Discriminating against people based on where they live or what they do is not a violation of the rules, is it, according to you? Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You may cherry-pick all you want. While your machine translations are inaccurate, let me remind you that back in March I apologized for making such rude remarks a decade ago, and did so numerous times for any comment that can even remotely be interpreted as offensive. You, on the other hand, made multiple threats of violence very recently, which is a serious violation. Both the T&S and U4C have reviewed your behaviour, and decided to give you another chance, a fact you seem to be failing to appreciate. Nataev ^talk 15:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@User:Nataev and @User:Jamshid Nurkulov, you should stop, this is not useful at all. Please consider this as a last warning. Thanks --Civvì (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Mirzoulugʻbek

Dear U4C members @0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:,

On behalf of the Uzbek community, I would first like to apologize to you (and the Wikimedia Trust & Safety team) for taking your time. I had believed that our community would respect your decisions and refrain from unnecessary remarks. While you sought feedback on the proposed motions, all of the users who have commented above (namely, Panpanchik, Anjaniy, Xoqoni Said, ShohjahonSobirov, Laziz Baxtiyorov, Kamol Azzam, Erkinoy, and Jamshid Nurkulov) have focused on slandering and falsely accusing Nataev. They have also ignored the one-week deadline you proposed (06:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC) — 06:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)) and have not provided any constructive feedback. I, on the other hand, promptly provided my feedback on the proposed motions, albeit in Uzbek, (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Mirzoulug'bek-20250729193100-Other_feedback_(Mirzoulugʻbek)), and I hope you've seen it.

However, since the personal attacks on Nataev haven't stopped, I feel compelled to point out a few issues that seriously question the motivation and veracity of the claims, especially those of Jamshid Nurkulov. Ironically, he has demanded the "truth" (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Jamshid_Nurkulov-20250813141100-BRPever-20250813140600). Assuming he meant justice, I believe that someone demanding justice deserves to be shown justice. I'll try to be brief, but it's not going to be easy.

I lived with Jamshid like brothers for several months. I criticized some of his actions and praised others. He has committed so many violations that I've lost count. He even released audio recordings from our time in the apartment without my permission (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Administratorlar_forumi#c-Jamshid_Nurkulov-20250309092800-Alpasli_qilgan_tajovuzi_yuzasidan_shikoyat), including events I barely remember, in an attempt to disgrace me. The audio addressed unfounded allegations that an adult female user had stayed in our shared apartment with Alpasli. (Even if she had, that would have been entirely within her rights. I can't believe I have to point it out!) The girl in question hadn’t stayed in the apartment where Alpasli was living but had only left her belongings there because her bus was delayed. She also stated that she had no desire to comment on this ridiculous gossip-like discussion. I’ve sent you the proof of this over email.

Now, let me outline the extremely problematic actions of Jamshid Nurkulov — one of the key figures behind this well-coordinated attack on Nataev. These are actions I remember clearly and for which solid evidence exists. I trust that you (and the Trust and Safety team) will: 1) draw appropriate conclusions about the credibility and motivations behind the feedback shared thus far regarding the proposed motions, and 2) take appropriate action against Jamshid, a central figure in the smear campaign targeting Nataev.

1. Jamshid has a long history of targeting and eliminating anyone who remotely challenges him or stands in his way when he is fighting for his own interests or the interests of his close associates. Nataev is simply his current target. For example, Jamshid constantly harassed the late Salazarov, who had fallen out with Panpanchik, and tried to prevent him from attending camps and other events. Even when I told him not to treat new users like that, he didn’t listen. Salazarov wanted to become an admin based on his experience and knowledge, but Jamshid, along with his loyal followers, tried to prevent him from getting admin rights. He even tried to involve me in this unfair move, but I refused because I stood for justice. I have ample evidence of this, including video evidence. At one point Jamshid publicly implied Salazarov was mentally unstable ("ruhan beqaror") (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Administratorlikka_so%CA%BBrovlar/Salazarov#Qarshilar).
2. In another similar case, Jamshid, who considered himself untouchable on uzwiki, accused a user named @Dilbar Elamanova (Ismatullayeva) of harassment and drove her to leave Wikipedia. He convinced other admins and Nataev that he was being harassed. At that time, I told Nataev not to believe him, but the admin was too naive. Ismatullaeva apologized despite being not guilty (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foydalanuvchi_munozarasi:Dilbar_Elamanova_(Ismatullayeva)#Ogohlantirish), but has stated privately that this injustice led her to leave the project. She was a great contributor who created extremely useful entries.
3. In yet another similar incident, Jamshid demanded payment for five months in which he hadn’t worked, but the Youth Affairs Agency rejected his request, stating they couldn’t pay for work he didn’t do (and since no contract had been signed). I have evidence of this and will gladly share it with you over email. As a result of the agency’s refusal to pay him for a period in which he had’t worked, he developed a grudge against the project’s accountant.

   During a WikiCamp, that same accountant’s child earned the right to participate alongside others to learn to contribute to Wikipedia. To take revenge on the accountant, Jamshid blocked the child’s account for ONE WEEK (https://uz.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxsus:Log&logid=1300743) citing creating machine translated content as the reason and then two days later changed the block settings (https://uz.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxsus:Log&logid=1314579). It wasn’t only that child using machine translation – everyone else was doing it at the time, making Jamshid’s actions stand out as an act of personal revenge.

4. The user using the sock Erkinoy recently commented on the case of a person named Muhammadali (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Erkinoy-20250814120700-Mirzoulug'bek-20250808081500). With regard to that incident, Jamshid made a late-night call to the female project manager, discomforting and harassing her. When her husband answered and asked why he was calling at night since his wife was asleep, Jamshid mocked him, saying “I’m calling a state employee; they don’t have the right to sleep even at night.” He later personally bragged about this to me. The manager later confirmed the incident to us during a work call.
5. During WikiStipendia, Jamshid tried to distribute almost all the top prizes among his acquaintances. For example, in the first season, when the user @Finikchik held 3rd place, he persuaded the judges to artificially replace her with Panpanchik by recasting their marks on Fountain. Panpanchik did end up taking third place! (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:WikiStipendiya_marafoni/Natija#G%CA%BBoliblar) I also have evidence of this.
6. A similar incident happened while we were sitting in our apartment. Jamshid tried to help Komrontoy, Panpanchik’s younger brother, win money through the “Decent Article” nomination by calling his contacts and asking them to vote for an article Komrontoy created. Among those contacted were Alpasli and myself. He asked us to vote too. Alpasli did, but I refused, saying I didn’t understand English terms. (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Xushsifat_maqola_nomzodlari/Arxiv_2023#Rozilar_27) After the article was selected as decent, Nataev analyzed the entry and with concrete examples showed it was a bad machine translation, which resulted in the article losing its status (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munozara:Ferrari_Monza_SP#Statusdan_mahrum_qilish). This made Jamshid and Panpanchik furious, which they made no effort to hide. There’s private evidence of this too.
7. Jamshid has uploaded content to uzwiki that he admits to having taken from others. As outlined in the terms of use, users should only upload content that they themselves have created or that is appropriately licensed. Jamshid openly admits uploading content created by others using his sock called Vikitarjimonlar klubi (https://uz.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foydalanuvchi:Vikitarjimonlar_klubi&oldid=2077519). The account name itself, which means “The Club of Wikitranslators," is an indication it’s a group account.

   He also admitted uploading content created by other people through another sock, Wikieditor2077 (https://uz.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foydalanuvchi%3AWikieditor2077&diff=3601818&oldid=2483864), which he calls "his project" (https://uz.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foydalanuvchi:Wikieditor2077&oldid=2483864).

   These socks remain unblocked, and the content created by others that he uploaded remains undeleted.

8. Jamshid has been committing similar violations on Wikimedia Commons. This user, who is familiar with copyright, has been uploading photos that he himself took under his extremely close associate Panpanchik’s account, possibly to impress other Wikimedians or to win prizes for her. I personally witnessed this during the Sary-Chelek trip, where I was present with Jamshid another user, and I have undeniable proof of this. While Panpanchik was not there, dozens of photos of Sary-Chelek have been uploaded through her account. (e.g., https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_02.jpg; many more: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Panpanchik&target=Panpanchik&dir=prev&offset=20240619105206&limit=500)
9. Additionally, at a wikicamp, Jamshid used his admin rights to pressure agency staff into giving a luxury room to the newly appointed admin and his close associate Panpanchik. He caused a loud scene and argued with them, and we had to step in to de-escalate the situation. Even then, the agency staff refused to provide the room to Panpanchik, and I ultimately offered to give up my own assigned single room to accommodate him.

   During this incident, Panpanchik, flaunted her admin status to claim the luxury room and showed a clear sense of superiority over regular participants. Jamshid, after coming to my room, had no choice but to sleep on the floor in my room.

   (The conflict between Kamol Azam and Alpasli also stemmed from this same luxury room issue. The two engaged in a physical fight, as already recounted in detail by Nataev. (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Nataev-20250324140900-Abuse_of_the_projects_by_users_affiliated_with_a_project_sponsored_by_a_governme) As a result, Alpasli left the camp in a physically hurt and mentally distressed state and returned to Tashkent from Bo‘stonliq, the area where all the wikicamps were held.)

10. Jamshid, Panpanchik, and Laziz Baxtiyorov’s associates such as Xoqoni Said are once again accusing Nataev of using the term "sheep" to refer to creators of horrible machine translations (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Xoqoni_Said-20250731181100-Feedback_from_Xoqoni_Said), but Jamshid has deleted evidence where he himself made similar remarks. However, I have video evidence showing that he literally referred to real sheep as "machine translators" in a joke, and I’ve sent that video to you over email.
11. While I was in Jalalabad, he called me and made a threatening phone call, saying that if Nataev ever visits Uzbekistan, he would “tear his ass apart.” Even when I tried to calm the situation, he wouldn’t back down. When I told him to call Nataev directly instead, he said, “No—you tell him.” I did, and I also recorded his threat when he made it once again when I was with him in person. I’ve sent the audio over email. I reiterate that repeated threats of physical attack should be taken extremely seriously. I repeat: extremely seriously!
12. In an act of unbelievable hostility and complete disregard for good faith, Jamshid went so far as to falsely accuse Nataeva—Nataev’s spouse and someone who has stayed uninvolved in the current uzwiki case (and WikiStipendiya apart from taking part in the first wikicamp and the first season closing ceremony)—of MEAT. (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Jamshid_Nurkulov-20250813084000-Feedback_from_Jamshid_Nurkulov) Her only action was to urge members of the admin Telegram group to resolve conflicts through communication and empathy. Nataev promptly deleted her message, explicitly noting that "while you did not call to support any side ("biror tarafga yon bosishga chorlamagan bo‘lsangiz-da")." He rightly pointed out that even a sincere and neutral message like hers could be misinterpreted as CoI—something Jamshid’s reaction unfortunately confirmed. It’s also worth noting that Jamshid had relinquished his admin rights on March 13 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&logid=59072023) and was no longer part of the uzwiki admin Telegram group when Nataeva posted her message and Nataev deleted it. Jamshid likely saw it through associate(s), who shared the messages without the consent of either user.
13. Even now, Jamshid continues to lead and allow a smear campaign against Nataev in the https://t.me/uzwikichat Telegram group he created himself. Why is UCoC not being enforced in this large group? Why is Jamshid and his associates openly allowing a smear campaign while the case is open here and you’re seeking feedback? Won’t this portray Nataev as a negative character in the eyes of uninvolved Wikimedians? What about the justice (he calls "truth") that he is seeking?

I can go on, but I’ll stop here. I have tried to mediate and resolve conflicts. Even when the Youth Affairs Agency refused to pay Jamshid’s salary, I intervened and negotiated with them. However, after Nataev justly exposed Jamshid’s and Panpanchik’s actions (along with many other users who have won hefty cash prizes from WikiStipendiya—just take a look at hundreds of photos of smiling winners holding cash prizes worth thousands of dollars, available on the WikiStipendiya Telegram channel (https://t.me/wikistipendiya) and on Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiStipendiya_Awards_Ceremony and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiStipendia_Season_2_Closing_Ceremony)), and fought against the misguided policies of the Youth Affairs Agency by criticizing the WikiStipendiya project, thereby endangering its future, Jamshid and his associates started a campaign to denigrate Nataev in the eyes of the Agency workers. The fact that Nataev fought against horrible machine translations, including by leading the effort to disable the Content Translation tool for inexperienced users — and received wide community support for this (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Forum/Arxiv/Takliflar/2024#AT_uskunasidan_foydalanish_uchun_cheklov_o%CA%BBrnatish) — gave the agency an additional reason to get rid of him.

Moreover, Jamshid actively asked Nataev to contact the agency staff about all shortcomings, such as delayed salaries and poorly organized events. Why didn’t he report these issues himself? Because he needed a scapegoat and wanted to maintain a relatively good relationship with the agency. I have more than enough evidence of this, some of which I’ve shared, and some I haven’t yet. I told Nataev not to criticize the project too much, but he insisted on ensuring that uzwiki didn’t suffer, partly due to his “Western” mindset. I’m not writing this to take sides but to point out the gross injustice of ganging up on a user who acted in good faith, believing he was doing the right thing.

Nataev has repeatedly apologized for making mean remarks (most of which were actually extremely common remarks made by the accusers themselves!), but I haven’t seen anyone else apologizing. Jamshid made a half-hearted apology for his “I’ll tear his ass apart” remark (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Uzbek_Wikipedia#c-Jamshid_Nurkulov-20250325004200-Other_feedback_(Jamshid_Nurkulov))— but only after Nataev reported it on Meta. But how does this serious violation compare to calling chronic machine translators “sheep” (especially when dozens of users were making the same remark)?

I’ve gone through only a small portion of the evidence I’ve gathered since WikiStipendiya was launched. I’m willing to provide as much evidence as you need and spend as much time as it takes for you to reach a just conclusion about the feedback provided above by not only Jamshid, but also by Panpanchik, Anjaniy, Xoqoni Said, ShohjahonSobirov, Laziz Baxtiyorov, Kamol Azzam, and Erkinoy. M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 03:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You have mentioned my username several times above. However, until the UCoC Committee asked for my input, I had not commented or participated in this case.

Also, contrary to what you wrote, I have never slandered Nataev. On the contrary, he himself has repeatedly violated rules against me. I did not comment in the local discussion that was opened about him. Only after he personally violated several rules against me did I feel compelled to express my opinion in this case.

None of the evidence you listed above is related to me. Therefore, I do not understand why you are mentioning me. This is against the UCoC and Wikipedia’s rules.

Please, do not try to portray me negatively or discredit me in processes that are unrelated to me. Such actions are contrary to the UCoC and Wikipedia’s rules. I hold no hostility towards you or towards Nataev — and you know this well.

Let me emphasize once again: what matters most to me is unity within Wikipedia. Dear UCoC members, you can clearly see from this case that there have been repeated violations of rules against me. I kindly ask you to take all of these into consideration. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Shohjahon,

I have always respected you, and I continue to do so. However, your involvement in this case cannot be ignored—especially given your past role in WikiStipendiya and your current position as the project’s manager.

I hope you still remember the times I stood up for you. Now, as you are deliberately attacking Nataev, I feel it is only fair to stand up for him in the same way—out of a commitment to fairness. Nataev pointed out, with clear and specific examples, the large number of poor-quality machine translations you had contributed. (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Administratorlar_forumi/Arxiv/2024#ShohjahonSobirov). It is entirely your fault that other users, including Jamshid Nurkulov, supported revoking your rights, and over half of all the articles you created have been deleted (https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/uz.wikipedia.org/ShohjahonSobirov/all).

Your original topic was meant to be about the Wikimarathon. Yet, within less than thirty minutes, you redirected it into a personal attack on Nataev. What does him unfriending you on social media have to do with any of this? You have asked not to be portrayed negatively, yet you and several members of the agency continue to publicly portray Nataev in a negative light—repeatedly and unjustly.

You claim that “unity within Wikipedia” matters most to you. If that is truly the case, why are you ignoring the U4C’s broader concerns—such as the complete lack of transparency around WikiMarafon and the absence of meaningful community consultation—and instead singling out one user who happened to document your past use of machine translations?

I have sufficient evidence to demonstrate your direct involvement in this matter, including the attacks on Nataev and irregularities within WikiStipendiya. I will be sharing this information privately with both the U4C and the Wikimedia Trust & Safety team. Thank you! M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 03:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I respect you as well. At the same time, I must emphasize that my mistakes during the WikiStipendiya marathon have already been openly discussed through the local discussion process and the necessary measures were taken. I have accepted this outcome with understanding and I am working to ensure that I do not repeat those mistakes in the future. This fully aligns with one of Wikipedia’s core principles: learning from mistakes and correcting them.

I would also like to point out that you were directly involved in the decline of the WikiStipendiya project. On the WikiStipendia Team page, you are listed as a team member. During the third season, you too received a substantial salary from the agency (significantly higher than the national average in Uzbekistan) for your work. In addition, the expenses for your several trips to the camp were covered, and the Agency for Youth Affairs also provided you with a laptop for your work (which, to this day, remains with you). Furthermore, it was Nataev himself who personally proposed that you be employed in WikiStipendiya with payment for your services. These facts clearly demonstrate that the systemic problems faced by the project cannot be attributed solely to me; rather, responsibility must be shared among other members of the team, including yourself.

In February of this year, prior to the launch of the new project, I personally reached out to Nataev and he also shared his suggestions. Moreover, several experienced Wikipedians, who were invited to participate in the project as advisors, contacted you and offered you the role of advisor within the project. However, you declined that invitation. Even so, I refrain from disclosing other internal processes related to WikiStipendiya, since my goal is not conflict but the establishment of positive collaboration going forward.

I would once again like to stress that I have maintained good relations with both you and Nataev. Until Nataev repeatedly violated the rules, I had not expressed any negative opinion about him in relation to his work. Only after my Facebook post was shared did I feel compelled to clarify certain points. Nevertheless, dragging my edits and contributions into this matter directly serves to distract from the actual process.

At this point, I would like to remind you of the relevant Wikipedia policies:

• Personal attacks are strictly prohibited, yet unfortunately we can observe some violations of this rule in your interactions.
• Rule violations must be discussed openly and documented; deliberately distracting from them is itself another form of violation.
• As stated in Dispute resolution, any conflict should be resolved through dialogue and evidence, not through personal attacks.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to stop attempting to discredit me in front of the community. I firmly believe that members of the UCoC (Universal Code of Conduct) are observing this process and will evaluate the situation fairly.

I would also like to briefly touch upon the new project: all of our project’s systems and social media accounts are open to everyone. As clearly stated in English Wikipedia’s consensus policy, new projects are not required to undergo mandatory discussion. On Uzbek Wikipedia as well, there is no such requirement. Nevertheless, the organizing team is planning to hold voice meetings and press conferences.

I do not wish to escalate this matter, but if the situation continues in this way and the rules continue to be openly violated against me or the new project, I will be left with no choice but to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc..

Our goal is to ensure free editing on Uzbek Wikipedia, to promote new projects, and to support community-driven initiatives. Therefore, I sincerely ask the UCoC team (@0xDeadbeef:, @Ajraddatz:, @Barkeep49:, @Civvì:, @Ghilt:, @Ibrahim.ID:, @Jrogers (WMF):, @Luke081515:, @Superpes15:) to take note of this situation and provide their feedback. Please help us. ShohjahonSobirov (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

How was I directly involved in the decline of the WikiStipendiya project? Was I the one who proposed assigning each participant an unreasonably high article quota or pressuring them to meet it?

I do not deny that I received a salary from the agency. However, who officially offered me the role of advisor? I genuinely don’t recall — is there any documented record of this?

As for Nataev, he did not repeatedly violate the rules as claimed. He merely shared a link to your public post, which included your publicly visible username.

Please refrain from labeling every statement as a personal attack. I am presenting verified facts and sharing them with the Wikimedia Trust & Safety and U4C teams.

I remain deeply saddened by the current division within our community. As the manager of yet another major government project, you were expected to help unify the team, in line with the recommendations of the Wikimedia Trust & Safety U4C team. Instead, your actions are further fueling the conflict.

By all means, feel free to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps they will respond more promptly. M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 10:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Since @Civvì: has forbidden me from writing, I won’t give you a long reply, but much of what you said is mixed with lies. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I have always made it clear that I prefer not to comment publicly on the UCoC matter, as this toxic environment has seriously affected not only my wiki-related activities but also my health. However, since my name has been mentioned over ten times, I felt it necessary to share my perspective.

I have not avoided providing information about the situation — I have consistently sent the necessary details and sources via email and have provided feedback, even though I did not wish to. (My doctor, after long-term treatment, has strictly advised me to avoid any stressful situations.)

For this reason, I will only share my comments regarding the parts where my name has been mentioned:

1. My relationship with Salazarov.

• I had a friendly relationship with Salazarov, and during my work with IbratWiki, there were a few temporary disagreements between us. However, we never intentionally caused harm to one another, and your claims on this matter are completely false. Until his passing, I remained on good terms with the late Salazarov, and in his memory, even though it was beyond the rules — I persuaded the organizing team to transfer me to the Slytherin team during the WeekieCamp-2. The reason was that this was the last plan he had discussed with me. It is true that many people disliked me afterward because of this, but my sole intention was to fulfill my friend’s final wish.

There was never any ban on his participation in other events or camps. He often told me that he could not attend only because of his studies. There was a minor misunderstanding before the second camp, but he still participated without any issues, and this happened in November, well before IbratWiki (February-March). Thus, it has nothing to do with any quarrel between us.

1. Regarding the blocking of the young boy who is accountant’s child.

• This claim is also completely false. I was present during that camp when the block was applied. Other administrators, including MirzoUlug’bek Karimov, also insisted on the block because the user in question had been repeatedly engaging in vandalism and creating articles that violated Wikipedia policies. However, the block was lifted soon after because it had unintentionally blocked the entire camp Wi-Fi network, preventing about hundred users from editing. That was the only reason for the unblock.

1. Promotion to 3rd place in WikiStipendiya.

• My promotion to 3rd place happened because additional points were awarded for featured or good articles. I do not deny earning that position, and I firmly believe it was due to the quality of my contributions. Writing a featured article is much more challenging than creating dozens of stub articles. The decision was made collectively by the admins and organizers. Jamshid Nurkulov alone did not have the right to unilaterally decide who received state-funded prizes. I ask that you take this into consideration!

1. Regarding my younger brother, Komrontoy.

• He has completely left Wikipedia due to false accusations and the toxic environment. I was the one who taught him how to edit and write articles, and I regret involving my family in this activity because it left him with a deeply negative impression of Wikipedia. His featured article was criticized over terminology issues. Until then, no featured article had ever been criticized in such a way, and Nataev, who had never previously participated in such discussions, suddenly began looking for mistakes specifically in my brother’s article.

When I asked the community for help in correcting the terminology, Nataev accused me of nepotism and repeatedly tried to damage my reputation by claiming I was “siding with my brother.” I still believe that Wikipedia belongs to everyone, and anyone should have the right to edit it. Even after the article’s featured status was removed, my comments on the matter were again misrepresented, and I was accused multiple times of favoritism.

Jamshid Nurkulov did not play an active role in this situation. I would have provided screenshots from the Wikimedians group chat to clarify, but that group is controlled by Nataev’s spouse Nataeva, and the chat history is restricted for everyone except certain individuals. They are selectively sharing only the parts that suit their narrative as evidence.

1. Regarding the room allocation issue.

• I have already shared my full account of this situation via email. To reiterate, I attended the camp as a volunteer admin, similar to Muhriddin Azimov. Muhriddin Azimov was placed in a room with Mirzo Ulug’bek Karimov and Jamshid Nurkulov. I do not know in what capacity Alpasli attended that camp.

1. About the “uzwikichat” group.

• No one is insulted there, and the group remains open to everyone. However, manipulative actions by certain individuals have created a toxic environment. I have already reported this to the UCoC team via email. The group was disconnected from the channel by Nataev without discussion. Although the group was not “official,” we used it to share updates about the Uzbek Wikipedia project.
• Following these events, I started an independent project, [t.me/viki_tiki_uz viki_tiki], which I am now developing across various social platforms to quickly deliver important information to Wikipedians. As for the newly created Discord group, many users from Uzbekistan find it inconvenient, and I have repeatedly seen such feedback in the uzwikichat group.

In conclusion, many falsehoods have been presented in this matter, aimed solely at misleading the UCoC team. I kindly request that this user’s statements be thoroughly examined and that the situation be assessed with a balanced and objective approach.

And I kindly ask all of you not to misinterpret the fact that I am not writing on the UCoC Meta page. The only reason I am refraining from doing so is that my psychological trauma has not yet fully healed, and I do not want to add new wounds. Please understand that I simply do not wish to participate fully in such a painful environment. However, I continue to send all necessary evidence and important comments via email🥺🥺🥺 Panpanchik (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Panpanchik, I’ve always respected you and supported you. Honestly, I hesitated to write down the things about your actions above. When Jamshid Nurkulov raised you to third place and pushed Finikchik down, I unfairly criticized Finikchik and regret it. I even said, “Not Finikchik, but Panpanchik deserves this spot,” though in truth that place rightfully belonged to Finikchik. She never quarreled with you, though she was upset, and later, at another camp, she proved many things to me.

You said you had a close relationship with Salazarov, and yes, you truly did. But because of some conflict within that relationship, you and Jamshid opposed his participation in the camp and tried to prevent him from becoming an admin. Why should a personal disagreement in real life turn into opposition against him on wiki? Jamshid even pressured me not to support him, giving me a hard time. Fortunately, I have undeniable evidence of this.

As for the accountant’s child, I never supported blocking that boy. On the contrary, when I said, “It was wrong to block him,” the reply I got was, “He has no right to be here on government expense.” To which I said, “Fine, that’s up to you.”

Between you and me, there has never been any conflict in real life, and there never will be. Yet, despite this, you still started working to push me out of Wikipedia along with Nataev. For example, I’ve seen that you wrote in bad faith to some users suggesting stating , “Let’s get rid of these two Kyrgyz.” Here the term “Kyrgyz” is an ethnic slur, as you know full well that we are Kyrgyzstani Uzbeks.

The WOULUG Telegram group is open to anyone who signs up through our Meta page and completes the member-approved Google Form. You’re a member there, just like dozens of others.

As the founder of the “Chigʻatay gurungi” group, you acted like the leader of a faction aimed at eliminating rivals, and for that you deserved disciplinary action. Still, I tried to assume good faith. (https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Foydalanuvchilarni_tekshirish#:~:text=Foydalanuvchi%20Panpanchik%20esa,aloqasi%20yo%27qligiga%20ishondim). This whole issue was caused by you and your group’s pursuit of large cash prizes from WikiStipendiya.

When you moved as a group to strip Nataev of his rights (there is undeniable proof of coordinated attack on your part), I shared my thoughts and cast my vote. Yet you slandered me and accused me of abusing my own rights ( https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Administratorlar_forumi#:~:text=Salom.%20Menga%20javob,huquqlaringizni%20suiiste%27mol%20qilmang). I will let the experienced users on Meta to be the judge — I never had any hidden tools to conceal comments.

You wrote above you have been negatively affected by this case, which is why I don’t want write long or in a harsh manner. I never wanted anyone to be punished. We had all become like one family. But you went too far with the coordinated campaign against Nataev. Even after he stepped down as an admin, you didn’t stop. And now, with no other choice, I too am forced to share the evidence I have. M𝐢rzoUlug'𝐁𝐞k 👤💬 02:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Красный

Dear U4C members, previously while being aware of the conflict (and I've even read some related discussions in Uzbek Wikipedia), I've tried to remain outside of it both thinking that you'll handle this well by yourself and considering my good working relationships with both Nataev and Jamshid Nurkulov. But now, when you are considering the final desicion, I think I can put my 5 cents here.

First of all, by my observations for the last two and half years, there's a rather deep conflict in Uzbek community as a whole that can be roughly simplified as "Uzbeks from Uzbekistan vs Uzbeks from Kyrgyzstan". This conflict is rather political but has a lot of other reasons that can not be described fully in one message and if you would try to check the citizenship of the sides in this case, it will match this long-existing brawl. I am more aware of Uzbekistani fraction view of this conflict because some of the community members there helped me in organizing local rounds of Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves monuments as well as few offline photographic activities, but I'm sure that both sides at some point made a lot of statements that go against UCoC and even basic courtesy. Because they've had a moneyflow from WikiStipendiya all the conflicts were swept under the rug, and, as I am aware, Uzbekistani Uzbeks even helped their counterparts from Kyrgyzstan to get the payments (because of the restrictions on sending payments from government agencies of Uzbekistan to the foreign citizens). But in 2025 when Youth Agency started to consider the closure of the project (that they eventually did not long ago) all of that went on light.

While both Jamshid Nurkulov and Nataev played crucial role in the organizing in 2025 Central Asian WikiCon in Tashkent (Nataev was the COT lead and Jamshid Nurkulov at some point became a CEO of our fiscal sponsor and made sure all payments were made on time including returning unspent funds to the Foundation), Nataev haven't showed up at the event claiming that there were treats of the legal prosecution of him because of his insults towards citizens of Uzbekistan in the public chat (the fact of insults was confirmed by a few different participants of this chat and U4C is probably aware of it). By his claim the legal procecution was initiated by one of the insulted wikimedians. And as I learned not long ago, this treats were false (and I haven't succeed in finding any traces of any legal claim filed), and Nataev visited Uzbekistan not long after the WikiCon keeping it secret from the wide community. I find it rather disappointing and non-transparent for a public figure in the movement who just skipped the important regional event in the situation of ongoing conflict in the community.

Regarding that I have two highlights:

1. While both Jamshid Nurkulov and Nataev made a lot of violations (and probably a lot more that I'm aware of), I can clearly see that these violations were mostly done by abusing their power in the community and advanced user rights rather than just being disruptive in general. While both of them are prominent content creators (in both Uzbek Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons) I see the full ban of any of them as a rather disruptive action itself that doesn't add anything to the future well-being of their respective projects and can significantly reduce the corresponding activity.
2. While both of them made said violations Nataev has much more expierience than Jamshid Nurkulov while Nataev has four and a half years more of Wikimedia age and nearly thrice more global contributions. And as far as I remember my first dive into the community Jamshid Nurkulov considered Nataev as a more expirienced one, so having more decisive power, and relied on Nataev decisions in some cases. In that situation I wouldn't consider the more strict punishment for Jamshid Nurkulov for the same offenses that I see is considered by U4C.

I probably could write something in personal support of both Jamshid Nurkulov and Nataev, and I want to, especially for the first one, while he's getting much stricter punishment. I can call both of them my colleagues while Jamshid Nurkulov is rather active in Quality images project at Wikimedia Commons and Nataev is a member of Regional Funds Committee. But I generally want U4C to try to consider situation more carefully and always have in mind that all restrictive actions in Wikimedia are made not to punish, but to stop the future violations that seem unlikely to me in the situation . Feel free to reach me for any additional info you may need openly or using Wiki-mail, I'm not sure if I highlighted all needed information in this message. Красный^{wanna talk?} 20:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, @Красный.

As I've consistently stated, the coordinated attacks against me began in response to my efforts to address the mass creation of low-quality content promoted by the WikiStipendiya project. (And my systemic documentation of improperly disclosed paid editing, abuse of privileges, and other violations by a closely knit group of users played no small part.) I led the initiative to compile a database of nearly 200 contributors involved in machine-translated articles, helped delete thousands of subpar pages, and advocated for restricting the Content Translation tool for inexperienced users. These actions had broad support from the wider community, with no division along national or citizenship lines. However, they conflicted with the Youth Affairs Agency's stated goal of reaching potentially a million articles on uzwiki, an objective backed by the 10 billion UZS in government funding. The agency never seriously considered shutting down the project; the funding needs to be used.

I'm surprised by your claim that I avoided attending the Central Asian WikiCon merely by claiming that there were threats of legal prosecution. As you and other members of the COT are aware, the Wikimedia Foundation's Human Rights Team explicitly advised me in writing on April 7 not to travel to Uzbekistan. Safety was the priority, and the COT fully supported my decision at the time. The bad-faith report to the police, made anonymously by undisclosed users, ultimately led me to voluntarily relinquish my advanced rights on April 9.

The claim that I visited Uzbekistan "secretly" is simply incorrect. Before traveling on personal business, I informed both the U4C and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety and Human Rights teams. I also uploaded a photograph taken during my trip to Wikimedia Commons, with visible metadata showing the date and location: File:Oxunjon Madaliyev Street sign in Yangiarab.jpg.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you are more aware of the Uzbekistani faction’s view. It appears that you may be in direct contact with Jamshid Nurkulov. Otherwise, you likely wouldn't have made the baseless claim about a "secret" trip.

Also, just because you, as a private individual, were "unable to find any traces of a legal claim" does not mean the report to the authorities did not occur. I was detained and questioned for several hours at the border, an experience that can be corroborated by at least two people and evidence. I believe I was ultimately allowed to proceed because the report lacked any substantial basis. Given that experience, I've chosen not to return to Uzbekistan.

Finally, you're right to note that there is more to this situation than you may know. That includes multiple threats of physical violence directed not only at me but also at several other users. Nataev ^talk 23:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It was surprising and unpleasant to hear that shortly after the event the trip turned out to be possible, while this was not commented on in any way by those who had dealt with it organizationally during the event. Everything can be explained — and you love explaining so much that in our communication I keep hearing mansplaining; but the point is the lack of transparency. Lvova (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Lvova,

I don’t think it’s fair to describe my sincere explanation as mansplaining. I traveled to Uzbekistan on June 16, two months after the conference, for unrelated business, which I clearly explained to the U4C and the T&S team by email. What matters is that they have my explanation on record. I’d also kindly ask that we not lose sight of assuming good faith. Nataev ^talk 07:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You wrote here as if the conflict started because of your fight against machine translation. But I just want to remind you that all active administrators and some active users then fought against machine and low-quality translation as best they could 1, 2. Our fight against machine translation is in no way connected with this conflict. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@User:Красный thanks for your comment, I just hope it's not the result of this short canvassing campaing.
@All, I do not think that Nataev has any obligation to explain the reasons of their private travels around the world to anyone. We have been provided with all the needed information and have a pretty complete picture of the reasons of some of their choices. So please, all of you, kindly refrain form making allegations and bad faith assumptions. Thanks --Civvì (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, being honest I was asked to comment several times before by diferent parties and I was looking after the conflict even before that, from the very beginning, while being involved in some activities with Uzbek user group. I fell out of the loop eventually (while discussion here wasn't very active) but few days ago I acknowledged about the Nodir's trip and started to check the story again. It takes a relatively long time for me to write such messages while I'm checking everything I write through Google translate to ensure that there'll be the exact the same meanings I want to express.

To explain myself better my concern here is not the private trip itself (that appeared to be not so private, but you probably already aware of its nature and it's not my business), but the lack of transparency on the matter. It's kind of "we mourned you!" while we were rather upset with Nodir not coming to the conference and then we see that he secretly came into the country despite all the claims. The same lack of transparency we've had when the story started and Nataev deleted all contents of his Telegram account in the middle of the conference organizing, so no one couldn't find any of his messages, like he had something to cover. And I dislike this attitude.

At the same time Jamshid Nurkulov at least was open while he was relying on the somehow wide community support. None of his actions both right and wrong were hidden and the canvassing campaign performed by Panpanchik looks as a "silly panic" to me while I'm sure no one of Jamshid Nurkulov's peers knows what to do in this situation. I also have asked several people whom I know personally to not to interfere because quantity is not quality.

I've sure said a lot but all these walls of text can be shortened to "I think I can express the Central Asian community will that while we despise all the bad actions we don't want to lose ones of the most active content creators of the region. No one will be hurt through Wikipedia article or quality photograph". Красный^{wanna talk?} 08:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

§ U4C Actions feedback

Nataev has been involved in incivility and violations of the Privacy Policy, including insults directed toward other editors (UCoC 2.2 and 3.1). should be updated to replace or remove mention of the privacy policy. The privacy policy is not the same as disclosure of personal data under UCoC 3.1. Also, community members, with CUs explicitly called out, are not covered by the the privacy policy.

This section is part of the Privacy Policy and is meant to explain in detail which situations are not covered by our Privacy Policy.

[...]

Community members

[...]

• Administrative volunteers, such as CheckUsers or Stewards. [...] When these administrators access Personal Information that is nonpublic, they are required to comply with our Access to nonpublic personal data policy, as well as other, tool-specific policies.
• [...]
• Other users. We provide several tools that allow users to communicate with each other. The communications may be covered by this Policy while they pass through our systems, but the users who receive these communications, and what they do with the communications once they receive them, are not covered by this Policy. [...]

— JJMC89 (T·C) 01:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@JJMC89 Hi, thanks for bringing this up, I have internally proposed wording change to avoid confusion with WMF's privacy policy. More towards something like, 'violations of policies related to privacy' which is covered in UCoC. BRP ^ever 12:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Nataev desysop

@BRPever Even till today, Nataev's checkuser right were still hold in their hand. Finding of doxxing is a veto to Access to nonpublic personal data policy and their NDA should be revoked. Why there's no emergency action for such terrible violations of policy? Lemonaka (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonaka Following the motion, his CheckUser rights have been removed. Relevant details and evidence have also been shared with Trust & Safety, as matters related to signing of Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy falls within their domain. BRP ^ever 14:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

About Nataev being able to reapply for CU rights after a year

I don't know if the U4C members have thought about this or not, but I was thinking about how Nataev mistakenly posted the first part of an username of someone who was accusing another editor of sexual assault (if Google Translate is correct). The woman who was accusing someone of that also posted posted about other Wikipedians telling her about sexual harassment and (I think unwanted) flirting by that person. The person she accused was later WMF banned, and the person reporting her experience was backed by other Wikipedians who then shared their experiences (including someone witnessing groping, which is sexual assault, by the WMF banned editor) with the WMF banned editor.

Accidentally disclosing the first part of the username of the person who complained, even if in a closed Telegram chat and even if quickly edited - according to Jamshid Nurkulov here: https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:Administratorlar_forumi#c-Jamshid_Nurkulov-20250317233200-Nataev-20250317121600 he was informed by third parities in the group that the username (I think that if they remember correctly they were referring to the first part of the username or they may have misremembered or that they or Jasmid Nurkulov were lying) of the person who had complained was revealed. Other people could have worked out who the one who started the noticeboard thread was from that (other people including possibly the person who was later WMF banned if it was shared with him). I know Nataev regrets accidentally posting the first part of the username of someone but I just feel the need to comment on this before the case is closed. --~2025-26357-10 (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Terms of Use still not fully translated

Terms of Use: Cyrillic script translation is half complete still. Latin script translation hasn't existed yet.

On the other hand, the translation of UCoC is fully complete. The case has been still open since the latest motion passed in September of last year. George Ho (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @George Ho. The reason the translation hasn't been finished is that the foundation is waiting until after the annual review so that the most up to date version was translated. Given that the UCoC is going to not be changed for another year - to allow for partnership with the Board - I have asked about the timeline of all that. As for the U4C side - speaking 100% only for myself and not for any other u4c member or for the u4c as a hole - I would offer as an explanation (not an excuse) that having 8 elected members, some of whom have had decreased or no availability this year, has harmed our ability to bring several cases to conclusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)