Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Review of administrative conduct 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
Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
User:Qədir local notif.
User:Nemoralis local notif.

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Ramazanova

Description of the problem - (Leyla Ramazanova)

I request a review of administrative conduct on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

An administrator was directly involved as a party in a content dispute and later acted in an administrative capacity in the same matter. During the process, arguments were dismissed without policy-based analysis, and the focus was shifted to alleged AI authorship instead of evaluating content compliance.

The discussion was archived without a neutral, independent third-party closure. After that, an indefinite block was applied to me without a clear identification of specific policy violations or diffs supporting such sanctions.

Because this concerns local administrative actions and procedural conduct, Stewards indicated the matter is out of scope for them and should be reviewed by the U4C.

These actions raise concerns regarding neutrality, fair treatment, and potential abuse of authority, contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct principles on impartial enforcement and proper use of administrative power.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Leyla Ramazanova)

Prior attempts to resolve the issue include discussions on Azerbaijani Wikipedia:

• https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaralama_m%C3%BCzakir%C9%99si:Leyla_Ramazanl%C4%B1 • https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:%C5%9Eikay%C9%99t/%C4%B0nzibati_h%C3%BCquqlar (Archive link)

Relevant diff illustrating the procedural issue and closure context: • https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikipediya:%C5%9Eikay%C9%99t/%C4%B0nzibati_h%C3%BCquqlar&oldid=prev&diff=8471903

The discussion was archived without a formal, neutral outcome, and the block was applied afterward. A request on Meta was redirected to the U4C process.

Suggested solutions - (Leyla Ramazanova)

I request an independent review of the administrative actions taken, clarification on whether the procedures followed comply with the Universal Code of Conduct, and guidance to ensure neutral and fair handling of similar disputes in the future.

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

This user is using AI to generate comments for them to paste in discussions. She has been told repeatedly by both of us (me and Qədir) that this is not right, that discussions should be conducted in natural language, by humans. She ignored this and continued the same activities, and as a result, she were blocked for not conducting a constructive discussion. Normally, I expect the person in front of me to write their own thoughts. If they are just going to copy and paste messages into ChatGPT, there will be no constructive side to this discussion. The user's text above was also generated by AI, and there is no doubt that her next comments will be the same. If so, this will be my last comment here. Another user was previously blocked for the same reasons, and he also appealed to U4C: see here. Nemoralis (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention here, they have been sending me a threat messages over Telegram and e-mail, which is also generated by AI. If this user can't write their own messages, why should I take this user seriously? Nemoralis (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback from Qədir

I consider the block justified, given that the user was warned multiple times and had been given opportunities. The user has a conflict of interest, and their activities do nothing but disrupt the normal functioning of the process. If you wish, I do not object to other admins reviewing the block. However, I do not want to spend my time on responses generated by artificial intelligence, which have also been used here. You will appreciate that you would not want this either. They may not know English, but they engage in the same behavior in their own language as well. It is sufficient to review the links provided by Nemoralis. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback from Robert McClenon

Does the U4C have anything resembling the English Wikipedia boomerang essay cautioning that the filer at a conduct noticeboard of a baseless complaint may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Robert McClenon since this does not apply (only) to this specific case would you agree to move this question to this page? --Civvì (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@Leyla Ramazanova: please notify Qədir. --Ghilt (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin, please also notify Nemoralis. --Ferien (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking administrator in this matter is az:User:Nemoralis.
Another administrator involved in the underlying discussion and procedural actions is az:User:Qədir. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and you are supposed to notify them.[1] Ghilt (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to notify them because I am blocked by those administrators and cannot post on their talk pages. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you can notify them on their talk page on meta. Ghilt (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both administrators have been notified on their Meta talk pages. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really a notification, I have notified locally. --Civvì (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Leyla Ramazanova did you even read the link i gave you? What you did was not ok. Ghilt (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. You are right - I missed the link you provided earlier. My apologies for that. I have now reviewed it and will follow the correct procedure. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to add that on this page you are expected to talk mainly with us not with the filer, so no matter how frustrated or annoyed you may be by the previous conversation "this will be my last comment here" does not really help. --Civvì (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can communicate with us directly and please send us the evidence via email. --Ghilt (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Nemoralis @User:Qədir The appeal process needs to work locally at azwiki, or it will end up with us and we will need to do it for you. Blocking talk page access AND wikimail prevents an appeal process. We prefer the first option. --Ghilt (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the discussion page nor the email sending feature is disabled. Both are enabled. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that both @User:Qədir and @User:Nemoralis were directly involved in the underlying discussion and related administrative actions, I respectfully request that any further review or handling of this matter be conducted by uninvolved administrators or, if appropriate, directly by the U4C.
    My intention is not to challenge individuals, but to ensure a neutral and independent process. I would also appreciate guidance on whether, under such neutral review, the article currently in draft space could be evaluated on its content merits and, if compliant with policies, be moved to mainspace through a standard, impartial process.
    Thank you for your consideration and for ensuring procedural fairness. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leyla Ramazanova you need to appeal locally before coming to us. --Ghilt (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification.
    I understand that the appeal is expected to start locally. However, both administrators involved in the underlying discussion and subsequent actions are the same users responsible for handling appeals locally, which makes a neutral local appeal difficult in practice.
    I am willing to follow the local process as required and will attempt to initiate a local appeal. At the same time, I respectfully note this potential conflict of interest and ask that this be taken into account if the local process cannot provide an independent review.
    Thank you for your guidance. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many other admins at azwiki that can handle your appeal. Ghilt (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the guidance and will follow the local process accordingly. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I atempted to initiate a local appeal on my user talk page at azwiki.However as shown in the attached interface message, my account is indefinitely blocked and i am technically unable to create a new topic or post a request on my own talk page. Therefore the local appeal process is not practically available to me at this time. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Leyla Ramazanova The page you need to use is this one az:İstifadəçi müzakirəsi:Leyla Ramazanova, there is no technical reason why you should not be able to edit that page. --Civvì (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, I was able to post on my user talk page.The block warning confused me at first,so I thought posting wasn’t possible.Ive now posted the local appeal there. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against of unblocking. But if the user continues to do the same things, there will be no other chance for appeal. Nemoralis (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify one important point about ai. I did not use AI to write the article. I wrote the text myself. I personally searched, checked, and added all sources,including books and archival references. no ai system created the article or the sources.My english and azerbaijani are not very strong. for messages like this, I sometimes use simple tools to make the text clearer, fix grammar, or improve formatting, so people can understand me better. This is only language or technical help, not content creation. Similar tools are widely used on Wikimedia projects for translations and formatting.In the article, I also used technical tools to improve wiki/HTML markup "where to put templates, references, formatting", which is not prohibited by Wikipedia rules.AI cannot independently create a full encyclopedic article with correct and verified sources from start to finish. Finding sources, checking them, deeciding what is relevant, and adding references is done by a human editor. AI tools can only help with formatting or language corrections.The main problem for me is that I was never shown конкретely which exact part of the article violated whic policy. I asked many times for specific diffs or examples, so I could fix them, but my text was refused to be reviewed at all.
i am not arguing with people. I only want clarity: what exactly was wrong, where, and based on which rule, so I do not repeat the same mistake in the future. Leyla Ramazanova (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you had asked this in your own sentences instead of using the text generated by AI, the issue wouldn't have gotten this far. Nemoralis (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2026/Review_of_administrative_conduct_on_Azerbaijani_Wikipedia&oldid=30058735"