Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Request for U4C Review: Indefinite Block and Admin Misuse on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
Khidirzada (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Gadir (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notification

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515 Khidirzada (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khidirzada

Description of the problem - (Khidirzada)

I am Khidirzada, an active contributor on Azerbaijani Wikipedia with over 5,900 edits since 2019.

On July 25, 2025, I was indefinitely blocked by admin User:Gadir immediately after I made several good-faith policy-based proposals on the Village Pump (Kənd Meydanı), including suggestions for enabling features like "Page Curation" and "Article Wizard" — tools successfully used on enwiki.

Instead of engaging in discussion, the admin:

  • Removed my proposals by claiming they were “AI-generated” without any proof,
  • Reverted all of my edits without consensus,
  • Deleted my public request for review,
  • Blocked me indefinitely with no prior warning or clear explanation.

This action appears to violate the Universal Code of Conduct, as it involves:

  • Abuse of admin tools to silence constructive participation,
  • Personal targeting without proper procedure or community input,
  • Suppression of editorial freedom and discussion.

Why this falls under U4C:

  • The local community lacks neutral and effective mechanisms to review admin abuse.
  • No oversight exists to appeal this block within az.wikipedia, and attempts at Meta were redirected to U4C.
  • The issue affects contributor rights, policy integrity, and community trust — all central concerns of the UCoC.

I respectfully request that U4C: 1. Review and reverse the indefinite block, 2. Investigate the actions of the admin, 3. Ensure enforcement of the UCoC across Wikimedia projects, especially in smaller communities with power imbalances.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

— Khidirzada (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘’‘Dear U4C members,’’’
I would like to respond to the feedback posted by User:Nemoralis on 25 July 2025, which I find both misleading and concerning. His statements contain personal attacks, mischaracterizations of events, and show clear bias that undermines the integrity of this process.
1. Inappropriate Tone and Personal Insults
Nemoralis claimed:
’’“This user is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia…”’’
This is a personal attack. Moreover, in a previous message, he used demeaning tone toward me on my own user talk page:
diff
This contradicts the values of Wikimedia’s Universal Code of Conduct and civility expectations for administrators.
2. Lack of Neutrality and Collusion with Administrator Gadir
My explanation on the Village Pump about the article deletion incident was deleted by admin Gadir, without community consent:
diff
This deletion suppressed my clarification and appears coordinated. Admins should ensure fair dialogue, not remove explanations of others’ actions.
3. Unjustified Removal of Rights
My patrol and rollback rights were removed based on a one-time experimental article and deletion request. I explained the context clearly here: diff
No prior warning, no discussion. This action was abrupt and disproportionate.
4. Misuse of “AI-Generated” Argument as Weapon
Nemoralis repeatedly claims that I used AI-generated text. However:
I edited and adapted all texts I posted;
There is no Meta or AzWiki policy prohibiting such use in discussion spaces;
Such claims are being used to silence me, not to ensure quality.
5.Request
I respectfully request the U4C to:
Review Nemoralis’ behavior for civility and neutrality;
Consider that the removal of my rights was unjustified and should be reversed or discussed publicly;
Recognize that my actions were made in good faith and within Wikimedia norms.
Thank you for considering my side.
Khidirzada (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - (Khidirzada)

Before submitting this U4C case, I tried to resolve the issue locally:

  • I posted my proposals on azwiki’s Village Pump (Kənd Meydanı), but they were deleted without discussion.
  • I opened a request at Steward requests/Permissions on Meta-Wiki and was told this should be taken to U4C because local enforcement/admin accountability is insufficient.
  • I also contacted Trust & Safety via their incident report channel.

Despite these steps, the block remains and no transparent, policy-based justification has been provided.

Suggested solutions - (Khidirzada)

  1. Reverse the indefinite block on my account.
  2. Investigate the conduct of the admin (Gadir) for misuse of tools and intimidation.
  3. Ensure UCoC enforcement mechanisms are applied on az.wikipedia to protect contributors from retaliation and censorship.
  4. Recommend procedural safeguards (appeal paths, transparency for admin actions) for small communities.


Dear Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Thank you for your time, attention, and thoughtful comments on this case. I truly appreciate your efforts and your willingness to engage with all aspects of the situation. I would like to offer a few clarifications regarding the concerns raised: The comments and discussions I have contributed were written and submitted in good faith, with the intention to clearly explain my position and contribute to community discussions. There is no local or global Wikimedia policy that prohibits contributors from using helpful drafting tools to organize thoughts or prepare text — especially in non-article spaces such as the Village Pump or user talk pages. Evaluating the intent and quality of contributions should take precedence over how drafts are created. I was indefinitely blocked without having committed vandalism, personal attacks, or any action that severely disrupted the encyclopedia. In addition to the block, my own user talk page was also disabled, which prevented me from: Appealing the block locally; Clarifying my intent or actions; Communicating with the local community.This level of restriction is usually reserved for severe abuse cases, which does not apply to my situation. I remain committed to Wikimedia’s principles and collaborative values. I kindly ask the U4C to consider: Whether the sanctions applied were proportional; Whether the indefinite block and full talk page restriction were necessary; And whether space should be provided for contributors to explain themselves, even in disagreement. Thank you again for reviewing this case fairly. — Khidirzada (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gadir

Previous attempts at a solution - Gadir

Suggested solutions - Gadir

Response - Gadir

Greetings. There's no UCoC problem here, but it's your discretion. I'm explaining the situation.

The user suddenly became active yesterday and created an article for himself. He then made the article a candidate for deletion. The article was subsequently deleted and his user rights were removed. Another user had removed the user group templates from his userpage, and he reverted that removal. He then used AI to make proposals at the village pump. I reverted his edits twice, but he didn't stop. He then created a request against me, which he also wrote using AI. I warned him, but he ignored it, and he was blocked. The reasons for the block are listed in his block: clearly not being here to create an encyclopedia, abusing editing rights, and gaming with the system and rules.

Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is clear that the user is gaming the system. I warned the user several times, but he continued to violate the rules. The reason why access to the discussion page is restricted is written here. After all these warnings, he was going to use this right improperly. The email feature is left open for future requests. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

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

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

Other feedback from Nemoralis

Khidirzada suddenly became active at night yesterday and created an article about himself, and then put that article up for deletion discussion. The deletion discussion was then quickly closed by another administrator and the article was deleted. Then another administrator removed Khidirzada's patrol and rollbacker rights for this frivolous behavior and asked for an explanation from him. Khidirzada then started saying that it was a joke (as a joke, he even created a Wikidata item). Here, another administrator said that his actions was not right.
A day later, today, Khidirzada again tried to justify his actions by po(a)sting content generated by AI in the village pump and demanded an apology from users who opposed him. After this, he again used AI-generated content to start discussions on 2 new topics: diff 1, diff 2. After Gadir deleted these topics, he once again tried to justify this using AI-generated content: diff.
This user is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, and as an administrator, I support Gadir's decision. I think that someone who can't write their own comments and uses AI-generated content can't contribute anything to the encyclopedia. Even the text the user po(a)sted here was written with AI.
The user says that he opened a request on the Steward requests/Permissions page but was redirected to U4C, but in fact, he wrote on the WM:RFH. This is because he posted the text written by the AI as a comment. The same thing happened on azwiki. Here he said that he posted 2 suggestions on a page called "Village pump/Suggestions" (which never existed). This is because the user did not give the AI enough context, and as a result the AI is making up page names on its own. Nemoralis (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A comment here has been moved to another section per special:diff/29033790

You've used AI-generated content again. If you can't write your own comments, I advise you not to make baseless claims against other users. This is my last comment here. Nemoralis (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

The filing of this request has been duly noted. On behalf of the U4C, --Civvì (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With no new comments in about a week and decline votes from majority of U4C members, the case is now closed as declined.--BRP ever 05:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Request_for_U4C_Review:_Indefinite_Block_and_Admin_Misuse_on_Azerbaijani_Wikipedia&oldid=29365755"