Request for comment/Political bias, nespotism, abuse and mob-rule at tr.wiki

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Indictment[edit]

Political bias[edit]

At trwiki, there is an article on a coup that took place in Turkey in 1980: 12 eylül darbesi.

The crisis emerged in one of its former versions: 4/11.2017 version of the article .

There, in the section named "ABD'nin rolü" you will see this source cited: 45. In this version, the source itself leads to nowhere, here is the web.archive screenshot of the source: https://web.archive.org/web/20060511070609/http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/2003/06/14/haberler/h2.htm

In the source you will find the following excerpt, just open the source then copy the excerpt below and search it via CTRL+F to see if it exists in the source:

"Kasete göre, Başkan Carter’a Ankara’daki darbeyi haber veren Henze değil, başka bir diplomat. Ancak olayı Birand’a anlatan Henze, “Ankara’daki çocuklar başardı.” şeklindeki mesajın Carter’a iletildiğini anlatıyor."

I wanted to introduce the above excerpt in the article as it gave insights about the section. But a patrol (@Pragdon:) sabotaged its introducement stating it is an original research despite the fact that I am just copy/pasting it, he edit-warred me to prevent its introducement. Why? Because the excerpt was against the allegation of the US involvement, the former version contained the Turkish version of the story from english wikipedia provided below:

"The American support of this coup was acknowledged by the CIA Ankara station chief Paul Henze. After the government was overthrown, Henze cabled Washington, saying, "our boys [in Ankara] did it."[32] Henze denied American involvement in the coup during a June 2003 interview on CNN Türk's Manşet, but two days later Birand presented an interview with Henze recorded in 1997 which confirmed Mehmet Ali Birand's account.[33][34]"

But the excerpt I attempted to introduce showed otherwise, the excerpt EXPLICITLY states the following:

"according to the interview a diplomat rather than Henze informed the president, saying "Boys in Ankara did it."" 

Formerly, The section was alleging according to the interview Paul Henze narrated he informed the US president saying "Our boys did it" while the excerpt I attempted to introduce states "according to the interview a diplomat rather than Henze informed the president, saying "Boys in Ankara did it'." So, in order to censor this statement Turkish Wikipedia authorities have been dismissing this complain of mine. @Rapsar: and @Sakhalinio: tried to act as mediators at some time but whenever I asked them to clarify if the excerpt exist in the source or not, if it is an original research or not. Here are the relevant links:

  1. With Rapsar. He never specified "Yes" or "No." He just dismisses, he ignores the question. I ask why? I can see no reason besides "political bias."

Nespotism, mob rule and abuse[edit]

@Pragdon: was in no way allowing the update because it was against the allegation. After being unable to reason with him, I contacted tr.wiki administrators, the following: @Sakhalinio:, @Superyetkin: and @Vikiçizer:. By the way, he was edit-warring me on En.wiki as well but he quitted it there after I reported him/her and he/she was warned by admin noticeboard.

  • Sakhalinio stated it is a topic he is not interested in.
  • Then I went to @Vikiçizer: reporting @Pragdon: is sabotaging (to him he expressed what I am doing is original research), I requested him to supervise the event. He stated he will be interested in it, I waited for more than half a month, he did not do anything. Then I filed my complaints again, @Vikiçizer: just blocked me for a week, I asked why but he never pointed out a reason for which action of mine I was blocked. All I did was to report the crisis to authorities but for that I got blocked.
  • Superyetkin did not do anything.
  • After a long edit-war, by chance I coincided with a patrol that is open to reasoning. Here is our discussion on the talk page: LINK. I have explained all of the objections, @Pragdon:, me and him/her discussed and all of my objections except 1 were accepted: irrelevant sources were deleted and the content was updated according to the sources. I told him that Pragdon accused me of committing original research as I attempted to introduce the excerpt, he explained "no, it is not an original research. It is explicitly mentioned there" but still did not introduce it to the article. He stated there is no point in discussing of introducing it to the article He also stated "If it was assessed as an original research it must have been due to the sources not being analyzed properly.".
  • I discovered Pragdon has tried to dissuade him from discussing the issue with me. Here is the link: LINK.


Conclusion[edit]

  • Authorities of Turkish Wikipedia dismissing even the question of whether the excerpt exists in the source or not makes me deduce they are politically biased on this topic. It does not even matter to them, they just dismiss it. If not for political bias, then why? I hope they will answer it.
  • Pragdon acted like he has a diplomatic immunity, when I reported him and elaborated my objections no one was interested in, except the patrol I coincided accidentally. All the ones that edit-warred me there saw no need to even discuss the issue on the talk page. It makes me deduce mob-rule is reigning on tr.wiki. When I reported all of these issues into local complainment page, no one gave damn .... Is it not nespotism? He is in a frank relations with the two admins, he was referring to them as "abi" which means brother in Turkish while he used to refer others in a casual way. If need be I can scan the archive and provide relevant links for his frank relations with the two admins.
  • The user was edit-warring me on English WP as well, upon my report he quitted but there is no where you could report such an action on tr.wiki
  • Two administrators blocked me for no reason, nothing could be achieved by consulting local authorities. @Sakhalinio: was involved in a conflict with me and blocked me despite Tr.wiki rules forbid such an action. Both cases are abuse, are not they? But local commmunity does not give damn *thing* on their abusing their authority, their political bias which makes me think mob-rule is reigning on tr.wiki. How could anyone oppose them while they could block everyone as they wish?
  • Related to the first question, I feel everyone involved was afraid to contradict Pragdon, that maybe the reason why they dismiss the question Pragdon declares "an original research?" Even the patrol that resolved our conflict just said "It is not original research" and "there is no point in discussing this issue." Note that this approach of his/her came after Pragdon talked to him/her on his/her talk page describing me a troll with whom there is no point in discussing, describing me as a troll that makes changes randomly and on his own wishes.

After experiencing and going through all of these events, my personal conclusion is: Related users' authorities should be removed. Feel free to join the discussion.

Additional notes[edit]

I doubt they will even show up to this discussion but I am gonna add this notes in case they attend. They may bring up red herrings like I vandalized their wiki and etc. They all are irrelevant to the topic, if they wish they should create new page on me and report me there. I protested them after seeing they were violating Wikipedia as they wish, they blocked me as they wish. They even accused me of sockpuppetry, I asked them which account I am accused of using for inappropriate purpose? None ever responded, they just blocked me and classified me as puppet user but this RFC page is not about me, it is about them. So, let all these be the topic of another page. --Ruhubelent (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss[edit]

No one is interested in this mob using Wikipedia for their political agenda? Is that what what Wikipedia is? None of them showed-up at en.wiki as they did not have power there but they blocked me on their wiki and sabotaged everything. Is this what Wikipedia is? --Ruhubelent (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It makes me extremely sad that Wikipedia is run by a mob like this and Wikimedia does not even supervise the event, is not even interested in a complaint report like this. Wikipedia loses all of its reliability due to a mob like them --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


I hope I can have all these published on news sources. Let it be known what kind of abusers are ruling Turkish Wikipedia, let it be known Wikipedia is in no way a reliable place for information. Any mob can silence the adversary by simply blocking him for their own political agenda, any mob can use Wikipedia for their own political agenda. I would not want to call Wikipedia a place like this but upon seeing no one gives damn ... to these ... rulers of Turkish Wikipedia, that is the only thing I can deduce and I can conclude. --Ruhubelent (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤:, you also were involved in these events at one point in timeline. I would be glad if you join this conflict and give your testimony on the dispute I had with @Pragdon:. Thank you in advance --Ruhubelent (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)