Requests for comment/Indefinite ban for Laziz Baxtiyorov

The following request for comments is closed. Unanimous consensus for a local ban. I've closed this RfC as successful and enacted the long overdue ban. Nataev ^talk 22:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Issue at a Glance

Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a sysop on Uzbek Wikipedia, has violated multiple policies, harassing another sysop on and off wiki and engaging in meatpuppetry. Here's a brief summary:

1) In May 2024, @Alpasli:, another sysop on uzwiki, reported Laziz Baxtiyorov stating that he was harassing him online and offline. In particular, Laziz Baxtiyorov had created multiple socks with the sole purpose of mocking and harassing Alpasli. The sock accounts are:

AlpAsli bilan tasodifan uchrashgan qiz (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - the name means "The girl who accidentally met AlpAsli."
AlpAslining sevgilisi (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - the name means "AlpAsli's lover."
Alpaslining muhabbati (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - the name means "AlpAsli's love."

Not only did these usernames contain Alpasli's actual username, but Laziz Baxtiyorov also decorated the user pages of the sock accounts with offensive imagery and contributed to sex-related articles. For instance, the user page of AlpAslining sevgilisi included an offensive infobox with a photo of an elderly woman holding a chicken and the caption "Alpasli's lover from the Banana Republic." Notably, Alpasli had previously created an Uzbek translation of the Banana Republic page. The user page also stated that Alpasli's occupation was "doing nothing."

2) I spent hours meticulously analyzing the editing behavior of Laziz Baxtiyorov and his sock accounts, definitively proving that it was him.

3) For good measure, I requested a checkuser examination. However, conveniently for Laziz Baxtiyorov, the request was stale. He strategically waited for the results to be announced before denying any wrongdoing.

4) After months of silence, @Kagansky:, a bureaucrat, closed the discussion, confirming that Baxtiyorov's misconduct was established and that he was to be desysopped.

5) I created a request on Meta, but @EPIC: kindly instructed us to hold a vote of no confidence since the discussion had died down since May.

6) I initiated a vote of no confidence.

7) Instead of facing the consequences, Laziz Baxtiyorov engaged in meatpuppetry, rallying a group of Wikimedians, most whom he had personally trained at at least one Wikicamp, to vote against desysopping him. Not only do all of these users personally know Laziz Baxtiyorov, but all except for two, were members of the former's team at at least one wikicamp organized as part of the WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon. Note that none of the users who opposed desyopping him had made a single edit on the administrator's noticeboard previously. Critically, nearly all voted in the span of a hew hours:

Mirishkorlik (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): voted at 07:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC): knows Laziz Baxtiyorov personally; was part of Laziz Baxtiyorov's team in at least one wikicamp; had never edited the noticeboard before[reply]
Rabiga Shabatova (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): voted at 08:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC); knows Laziz Baxtiyorov personally; was part of Laziz Baxtiyorov's team in at least one wikicamp; had never edited the noticeboard before[reply]
Janob Mirzaolim (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): voted at 11:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC); knows Laziz Baxtiyorov personally; had never edited the noticeboard before[reply]
Visola Tangirova (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): voted at 14:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC); knows Laziz Baxtiyorov personally; was part of Laziz Baxtiyorov's team in at least one wikicamp; had never edited the noticeboard before[reply]

Notes on other votes:

Doniyor Yóldoshev (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): voted at 00:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC); knows Laziz Baxtiyorov personally; had never edited the noticeboard before[reply]
Kamoliddin (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): retracted his opposing vote after definitive evidence of the fact that Laziz Baxtiyorov had indeed created the socks was shared (see the point below).
Hilola (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log): did not justify her opposition but openly stated that she knows personally both Alpasli and Laziz Baxtiyorov

8) @Mirzoulugʻbek:, who had held on to a key piece of evidence out of basic decency, shared a screenshot from his personal conversation with Laziz Baxtiyorov in which Baxtiyorov openly admitted to creating the sock accounts.

9) To avoid being desysopped for egregious policy violations, Laziz Baxtiyorov has requested that his rights be voluntarily revoked.

Laziz Baxtiyorov is likely to be desysopped one way or another (though I would prefer it to be specifically for his egregious misconduct). I'm creating this request for comment to gather feedback on the appropriate sanctions for him. I believe an indefinite ban on uzwiki is entirely justified, but it would be helpful to get more input from the broader community. On Uzbek Wikipedia, most admins know each other personally, and out of the 15 sysops, only three have participated in the discussion so far. Please also note that Laziz Baxtiyorov has been contributing under a paid account: Lazizbek95 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Therefore, any sanctions will need to be applied to both of his accounts (and the socks). Nataev ^talk 15:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that the above is true and ask the authorities to consider a solution. Alpasli (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support

Support. The actions of this user, including creating puppet profiles, manipulating votes in quotation marks, naming puppet profiles differently to mock the user, and tracking them, do not align with general rules at all. I believe that banning the user at least locally, maybe even globally, is the right course of action. --ITPRO.UZ (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Этот администратор очень некомпетентен в управлении проектами Викимедиа. Запрет спасет качество узбекской Википедии и сообщество от манипуляций со стороны армии одного человека. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support If that user said I didn't make puppets when they indeed created several puppets, then I don't see why their behaviors can't be seized by such process. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Admin socking is a serious problem and need to be dealt with. Lemonaka (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support user has grossly violated community guidelines and should be banning --Umarxon III (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

I don't understand what exactly we're discussing here. Are we discussing banning them on uzwiki? If so, why is this happening on Meta and not via local processes on uzwiki? Please enlighten me on this situation. --SHB2000 (t • c) 07:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm seeking feedback specifically on blocking him on uzwiki. Why aren't we discussing this on uzwiki and here? The answer is provided above: "On Uzbek Wikipedia, most admins know each other personally, and out of the 15 sysops, only three have participated in the discussion so far." Nataev ^talk 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, thanks for clarifying. --SHB2000 (t • c) 23:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit confused. Does the global Wikimedia project actually have the authority to block users on one wiki specifcially? Takipoint123 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm a bureaucrat on uzwiki. Since other admins and users (excluding Laziz Baxtiyorov's associates and friends listed above) have largely ignored the local discussion, I am seeking feedback here. I don't want to act hastily, but I believe the user should face consequences for their actions. Furthermore, as ITPRO.UZ mentioned above, such kind of egregious behavior may even warrant a global ban. Nataev ^talk 17:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. But I'm pretty sure a global ban requires the user to be blocked from multiple projects. If the behaviour is egrogious to threaten the safety of other users, a WMF foundation ban can be considered. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only question is whether indef-blocking him on uzwiki is warranted. Remarkably, his three socks mentioned above remained unblocked until I did so last week.

It has also come to my attention that this user has a secondary account, Lazizbek95 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which he has been using to make paid edits for over a year. He hasn't disclosed this secondary account on his main user page, and I've just issued him a warning about it. Nataev ^talk 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Uzbek Wikipedia, where a long-term sockpuppeteer(PlanespotterA320) can hold privilege for years, ignoring the warns from CUs and stewards. And with the deep connection, maybe personal connection between sysops, these ones may never be challenged.
So, good luck. Lemonaka (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, looking forward to a huge OA against this project, since some corruption is so deep that cannot be cured just by editors. Lemonaka (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but do you have anything to say about this particular case? Nataev ^talk 15:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say, good luck. Since meta wiki hardly dealt with local issues. Lemonaka (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nataev Can you email detailed information and evidence to WMF Office? cawikimedia.org Lemonaka (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'm a bureaucrat and sysop on uzwiki. As long as the community supports an indefinite local ban, I have the authority to block Laziz Baxtiyorov, along with his second account, which he uses for paid editing. So far, five users (including Alpasli, the target of Baxtiyorov's harassment) have supported the ban. Given this, I don't see any need to email anyone. The summary above provides sufficient detail, and for further information, one can refer to the relevant discussions on uzwiki and use machine translation for a quick overview Nataev ^talk 13:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka, this user should have been banned a long time ago, but I wasn’t in a rush and decided to gather broader community feedback. In addition to all the egregious violations listed above (including creating a sock puppet account called Alpaslining Muhabbati [meaning ‘Alpasli’s lover’], where Alpasli is another user, and posting an entry about uz:anilingus!), I recently discovered that he has also been involved in improperly disclosed paid editing. At least six people, including myself, have supported taking action against him, and nobody has opposed it. I think I should go ahead and enforce the ban. What do you say? Nataev ^talk 15:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the case can be handled locally, WMF should not be asked to intervene. After all, you are more familiar with this community than I am, though I don't have a very good impression of uz.wiki. It is horrible for administrators to use puppets while cannot be correctly dealt with, but WMF's intervention will also have a far-reaching impact on the community. It depends on your decision. Lemonaka (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your negative impression of uzwiki is entirely justified! The reason I started this very discussion here on meta is because there has been very little participation in the local discussions. This is largely due to the fact that many active contributors personally know Laziz Baxtiyorov. I’ll go ahead andt indef him and the sock he uses for paid editing. Ideally, I wish the WMF would get involved, but based on my own experience with the T&S team, they tend to be very slow to act. P.S. In the meantime, another user has expressed their support for the ban. Nataev ^talk 17:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]