Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Indefinite Account Block on Turkish Wikipedia over Alleged Conflict of Interest

This case is currently pending acceptance. The U4C will decide whether the case is accepted in 2 weeks since the case has been opened.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Basak (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
User:Wooze (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	local notif.

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Basak (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basak

Description of the problem - (Basak)

My account has been indefinitely blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia (wiki.tr) under allegations of “systematic and repeated conflict of interest editing” and of recreating content previously deleted through community discussion “without providing a sufficient and clear basis for reevaluation.”

I have 21 years of Wikipedia editing experience with no prior formal warnings, topic bans, or escalating sanctions regarding COI or any other policy violations. My contributions are extensive and cover a wide range of topics, including science, history, culture, and biographies of living people. The allegations focus on a select subset of my edits, representing only a moderate portion of my overall contributions.

The allegations appear to rely on speculative associations, such as social media interactions, presumed prior relationships, and assumptions about motivations for recreating previously deleted content. For example, some claims appear to rely on examining social media connections—such as whether I follow a subject or they follow me—and linking these to my edits on related articles as potential evidence of a conflict of interestt. I strongly object to being blocked indefinitely on the basis of such selective and speculative reasoning.

I conduct all editing based on independent research, reliable sources, and policy-compliant practices, and I engage respectfully with other editors in collaborative discussions regarding article content and notability. The block appears disproportionate and inconsistent with my long record of good-faith contributions.

Detailed Examples

1. Can Bezirganoğlu (2024) A previous article had been deleted approximately one year before my contribution. I was unaware of this deletion. After researching the dancer’s international awards, I created a new article supported by reliable sources.

A notability template was added by another user. I opened a discussion, provided evidence of notability, and the matter was resolved through standard collaborative processes.

My conduct was transparent, respectful, and consistent with Wikipedia editing norms. The template’s initial use appeared to follow an informal “reminder” practice, not a policy requirement.

2. Burak Özgüner (2022) Two months before my contribution, another editor allegedly associated with his organization created an article that was later deleted. I independently created a new article using reliable sources.

When a notability tag was added, I opened a discussion explaining why the subject met Wikipedia’s notability standards.
The tag was ultimately removed after review of my references, demonstrating proper collaborative resolution.

3. Erhan Güzel I created the article about ballet choreographer Erhan Güzel after researching a notable ballet production.

One day later, a user account belonging to the choreographer made minor edits, which I reviewed and approved as a patroller.

I did not know him prior to creating the article, and after noticing his edits, I engaged in constructive communication using Wikipedia’s ‘Email this user’ function to suggest contributions to other articles. This does not constitute a conflict of interest requiring disclosure.

4. SanatJazz (Sanat Deliorman) I substantially improved articles she had contributed as part of mentorship and collaboration following a pandemic-era Edit-a-Thon.

Evidence cited to suggest COI is based on routine editorial support, not personal or financial connections.
I do not have a COI with this user, so disclosure was not required.

Pattern and Proportionality

The indefinite block appears to reflect a selective interpretation of my editing history rather than any systematic policy violation. While the allegations cite certain articles and social interactions, they do not demonstrate a recurring or intentional pattern of misconduct.

For example, isolated instances of editing articles after other contributors (or subjects) have made minor contributions or edits do not constitute a conflict of interest if the edits are made in good faith and comply with Wikipedia’s sourcing and content policies. Similarly, recreating articles on topics previously deleted is not inherently a violation when done independently, with reliable sources, and in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.

The timing of the block also raises questions of proportionality. The examination and block coincided with my election as president of our WMF-supported association, despite no prior warning or formal concerns over my editing practices. This sequence suggests that the punitive measure is disproportionate to the alleged concerns and does not consider my long-standing history of constructive, policy-compliant contributions.

Taken together, these factors demonstrate that the block is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s principles of assuming good faith, evaluating edits on their merits, and proportional enforcement of policy.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Basak)

I responded promptly to initial COI questions raised by an administrator, providing explanations about:

My independent creation of articles, including Can Bezirganoğlu (2024) and Burak Özgüner (2022), with careful use of reliable sources, engagement in discussions regarding notability templates, and consistent adherence to collaborative editing practices.
No prior relationships with individuals such as Erhan Güzel and Sevecen Tunç, particularly demonstrated through email correspondence with Erhan Güzel, which confirms I did not know him before creating the article.
My mentoring and constructive editing concerning SanatJazz, showing that my improvements to her contributions and participation in discussions were responsible and collaborative, not indicative of a COI.
I have no personal or financial connection with Özkan İrman or Haluk Uygur; the images used in their articles were provided by other contributors with whom I had prior connections, and this practice falls within normal collaborative editing; it does not constitute a conflict of interest.

Despite these explanations and evidence, shortly afterwards, my account was blocked indefinitely without prior warning or progressive enforcement measures. Since the block, I am unable to edit any pages, send emails, or even edit my own talk page on the Turkish Wikipedia.

Yes, I attempted to appeal locally. When the user left a message on my talk page requesting explanations, I promptly replied here. Shortly afterward, my account was blocked. Since the block, I am unable to edit any pages, send emails, or even edit my own talk page on the Turkish Wikipedia.

After the Local Appeal (Basak)

1. Case Summary

The decision to indefinitely block my account on Turkish Wikipedia (trwiki) was upheld after appeal discussion on the Administrator’s Noticeboard

The stated reasons in the block rationale are the following:

Allegation of “extensive and systematic contributions to articles related to certain individuals and circles over a long period of time”
Failing to disclose a conflict of interest despite existing social ties to these individuals
Recreating content that was previously deleted following a community discussion without providing a sufficient and clear basis for reconsideration

During the discussions, I was also accused of “meatpuppetry”.

I believe that the block is not based on actual policy violations, but rather influenced by off-wiki affiliate dynamics, misinterpretation of policy, overbroad readings of COI rules, and selective focus on a small subset of my contributions.

2. Key Concerns

2.1. Affiliate-related concerns / possible misuse of authority

The timing of the block raises procedural concerns regarding the potential misuse of administrative authority beyond on-wiki contributions as it occurred one day after I was elected president of the Wikimedia Foundation-funded affiliate, Dijital Bilgi Derneği.

During the local appeal, User:Immortalance noted that the timing of the block could be related to affiliate developments rather than my on-wiki edits, and User:Adem openly stated that this block was a result of “Significant developments took place over the course of 5 years related to Dijital Bilgi Derneği.”

Although User:Wooze claimed no connection to the affiliate, records indicate he joined the affiliate’s Telegram group in January 2024 and participated in discussions from time to time.

Prior to the block, on January 29, a “chapter creation call” was issued under the leadership of the reviewing Checkuser (call) ; on February 26, an admin created a meta.wikimedia.org election page to update the WMTR management (election).

Given this context, the block—which prevented editing and sending messages via talk pages or email—raises procedural concerns regarding whether administrative authority may have been applied in a way extending beyond on-wiki conduct.

2.2. Misapplication of deletion/recreation (SAS / AfD) reasoning

One stated rationale was that I “recreated content previously deleted following community discussion without establishing a sufficient and explicit basis for reconsideration.” This reflects a misapplication of deletion/recreation procedures, as Wikipedia policy does not prohibit reconsideration or recreation of previously deleted content.

Notability and article quality are dynamic; topics may become notable over time with new sources or improved content. The articles I recreated were deleted 2 months (Burak Özgüner) or over a year (Can Bezirganoğlu) earlier, and I discussed them respectfully on the talk pages with sources provided (Burak Özgüner talk, Can Bezirganoğlu talk).

On one of the relevant articles, I engaged in direct discussion on the talk page with the administrator who ultimately issued the block (see Can Bezirganoğlu talk). This interaction demonstrates that the block was imposed despite open dialogue and clarification attempts, raising concerns about procedural fairness.

No policy violation or disruption was evident; using this as grounds for an indefinite block misapplies policy and overreaches the intended scope of deletion rationale.

2.3. Misinterpretation of Conflict of Interest (COI) policy

The discussion cited mutual social media following or following associates of article subjects as evidence of COI. Several participants expressed this view during the appeal.

Treating ordinary social media interactions as COI is an overly broad interpretation that is not supported by Wikipedia policy. While some participants in the discussion argued that such interactions constitute a conflict of interest, the COI guideline itself does not define social media following alone as a COI, and there is no demonstrable personal, financial, or organizational relationship that would compromise neutrality.

For instance, during the discussion, it was suggested that even having read a book about which one created an article could be considered a conflict of interest under this interpretation, illustrating how overly broad and misapplied the COI claims were.

Using such reasoning to justify an indefinite block misapplies policy and raises concerns about proportionality.

2.4. Overgeneralization and violation of good faith

The block rationale also states that I have “made intensive and systematic contributions to articles related to certain individuals and circles over a long period.”

I have contributed to over 2,000 articles across many topics over 21 years. The discussion and block focus on only 5-6 articles, without evidence that my broader contributions demonstrate any policy violation.

This selective focus represents a cherry-picking approach and undermines Wikipedia’s “assume good faith” principle. Relying on a narrow subset of my contributions to justify an indefinite block is disproportionate and does not meet standards of neutrality, fairness, or procedural due process.

2.5 Misapplication of “Meat Puppetry” / “Canlı Kukla” Claims

During the discussions, I was accused of “meatpuppetry” based on four factors:

Making an unusual approval attempt in version control
Following or being followed by certain social media accounts of individuals whose biography articles I contributed to
Interacting with social media posts of article subjects
Adjusting my social media privacy settings to private

In my case, none of these factors meet the criteria for “Meat Puppetry.” I contributed individually using my own account, without coordination with other users to influence any discussion or outcome.

Labeling my contributions as “meatpuppetry” represents a misapplication of the policy and an overly broad interpretation of its intent. Each cited factor requires contextual explanation to demonstrate any actual relation to “Meat Puppetry,” which was not provided in my case.

2.6 Misinterpretation of Mentorship and Good-Faith Contributions

I have reviewed and corrected contributions made by participants of an online edit-a-thon that took place six years ago. For example, I extensively edited articles about musicians such as Can Tutuğ, Baturay Yarkın, and Emin Fındıkoğlu after their creation, correcting issues inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.

These activities were conducted in good faith as part of mentorship and educational support. However, these corrections were later associated with an alleged conflict of interest which represents a violation of the “assume good faith” principle.

It is important to note that in the contributions I made, no promotional tone or irrelevant sources were present, and no content-related issues were identified. Evaluating my contributions solely based on social media connections with the article creators violates the Wikipedia principle that content should be assessed on its own merits, not based on the individuals involved.

I have provided Wikipedia training to hundreds of participants in multiple edit-a-thons and university courses, and some of these participants are connected to me via social media. The claim that these interactions constitute a conflict of interest is unsupported. Even if a policy were interpreted to require disclosure of such mentorship relationships, applying it in this case without regard for good faith and proportionality would be an overreach.

3. Lack of Policy Basis & Proportionality

While the block rationale cites alleged COI violations, no specific or substantiated policy breach has been clearly demonstrated in relation to my contributions. The rationale conflates policy misinterpretation with real-life dynamics, misapplies deletion guidelines, overextends COI rules, and selectively highlights a tiny portion of my contributions. An indefinite block is a severe sanction, which must be grounded in clear, policy-based reasoning. This standard was not met, raising concerns of disproportionate and arbitrary enforcement.

Additionally, the block included a review note about “meatpuppetry” (see section 2.5). While not an official block reason, its apparent consideration in the local discussion further highlights concerns about procedural fairness and the potential misuse of administrative commentary.

The indefinite block prevented editing and sending messages via talk pages or email.

4. Request

I respectfully request that the Committee:

Conduct a thorough and independent review of whether administrative authority was misused in connection with off-wiki affiliate relationships.
Evaluate whether the block was applied in accordance with Wikipedia policies, including SAS/AfD procedures and COI guidelines, and whether the reasoning and proportionality of the block align with policy intent.
Examine whether the “meatpuppetry” claims, including the reviewing administrator’s note, were applied appropriately and whether normal individual contributions were mischaracterized as coordinated or manipulative activity.
Consider whether the indefinite block is proportionate to any actual policy concerns.
Ensure procedural fairness, accountability, and neutrality in the handling of this case.

--Basak (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on My Request

Dear Reviewers,

I would like to respectfully clarify the purpose of my request. I am not seeking U4C intervention for any affiliate-related or off-wiki issues. My concern is strictly related to on-wiki matters:

To investigate whether there are any issues with my editorial practices.
If no such issues are found, to evaluate whether there has been any misuse of administrative or checkuser powers affecting me.

I believe I may have been blocked due to matters unrelated to my on-wiki contributions, and I am respectfully requesting a fair review of this situation.

Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.--Basak (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wooze

Previous attempts at a solution - User:Wooze

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 (TheJoyfulTentmaker)

As a community member, I have great respect for Wooze as an admin and as a fellow editor. However, I have to say that I find both the indefinite block of Basak and the blocking of her user talk page to be admin mistakes and non-compliant with local policies. We have a new blocking policy, that was accepted by the community last year, which clearly states that blocking is not punitive but is meant as a practical solution to disruption. I think it is clear here that Basak is not disrupting the Turkish Wikipedia; on the contrary, she is one of its most prolific editors. Basak is usually very responsive, end even with a single ping on a deletion discussion, she may significantly improve an article if it is her within area of interest (especially if it is about independent artists). Her behavior is very constructive and very encouraging for new editors. Unfortunately, here it is used against her. A constructive feedback about potential COI, even if it is indirect, is acceptable. However, an indefinite block with no opportunity for a public appeal and without an opportunity for a community feedback seems somewhat disproportionate. I filed a local objection to Wooze's actions on the Turkish Wikipedia's Administrators' notice board. I'm hoping we can solve this problem locally. Best, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: If you follow the TrWiki discussion, there is a strong likelihood that my initial perspective was lacking key details and that this block may have been influenced by allegations related to certain off-wiki conduct and transparency concerns that are outside of on-wiki activities. If that is the case, we may need U4C's help to resolve this matter, because I and many other community members of the local project have no involvement or knowledge about those matters. This is similar to a case of a local block due to off-wiki issues, hence this is exactly the kind of case that U4C can handle best. Thanks for your help with this. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update-2: I hadn't intended to continue commenting on this matter and was hoping to hear from other community members, but I feel it is important to add the following. Simply looking at a couple of pages created by Basak (XTools page analysis) makes it very clear that the accusations are "cherry-picked", and that Basak's overall contributions are highly constructive, focusing on niche and underrepresented yet important topics on TrWiki.

In the recent admin panel discussing Wooze's decision, it is interesting to note that some of the admins accusing Basak of being in a conflict of interest may themselves be in a conflict of interest, as they have not declared that they are close to one side in the other dispute related to Wikimedia User Group Turkey. The allegations within the other dispute are very serious on their own. However, if we claim to keep these matters separate, (which seems difficult right now), and if we genuinely care about conflicts of interest, any relationship to either party of the other conflict needed to be disclosed.

Also, if you have a public account on e.g. Instagram, anyone can follow you. Being followed by someone does not mean that they know you or have any personal connection with you. There is no credible reason to doubt Basak's statements on this matter. I guess for any Wikimedian with a social media presence who enjoys creating lots of biographies, if you look hard enough, you can usually find at least one person following them among the bios that they created. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: Not just limited to this case, but something to think about in general, by the U4C and the global community. Do we consider the following/followed-by connections of a public Instagram account to be public information? If no, then what happened here is doxxing and it is a violation of the UCoC. If yes, then it itself serves as a sufficient declaration of a potential COI and invalidates all the accusations. (Especially if it is an account that is heavily followed by the Wikimedia community, and considering that there is no established on-wiki COI declaration practices on TrWiki, yet. I only know one instance of an experienced editor on TrWiki who has a COI declaration list. Even the COI guideline itself is too new to be internalized by the TrWiki community, as our admin Bjelica rightly pointed out in the local discussion.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update after the closing of the admin panel discussion. The admin panel discussion has concluded, and it resulted in 5 admins endorsing and 4 admins opposing the block. 2 of the endorsing admins were the checkusers and they were also involved in the original action as a checkuser, as well as testifying during the admin panel discussion as checkusers. Given that the checkusers had a major influence in this decision and the evidence they reviewed is not available to the rest of the community (including myself), I strongly feel that U4C needs to review the evidence that they saw. Even though the actions are done in good faith and with the motivation of protecting the Turkish Wikipedia; I have concerns that there is a possibility that the actions may constitute certain UCoC violations. Especially since they say this has been a long-term investigation and we do not see even a single COI warning during that period. Again, I have no doubt that the admin and checkuser actions were done in good faith but my concerns are about an unintentional violation. As a community member, thanks in advance for your help. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Temporary Account)

I also don't believe the COI policy of turkish wikipedia is well-established as Wooze said, because it is a quite recent addition and one that I find to be plagued by the general sluggishness of the bureaucracy in the wiki. The message page block is something that comes by default in trwp, which I believe is inapporpriate.

I just want a Turkish Wikipedia that's worth contributing to. Until then, I would like to ping @Umtcnyd and @Modern primat as I believe they've been treated with the same injustice Basak has been dealt with.

--~2026-10914-60 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To Mr./Ms. Civvi below, I have scrolled through Basak’s talkpage yet I couldn’t find any notification (they have a Twinkle template for it) Like I said in my statement above the COI policy is a quite recent addition and not “well-established” as Wooze claims. I decided to read on the COI policy once again and it seems quite hard to understand and would be very daunting to read if one wished to contribute with a legal COI. Not to mention at least a quarter of the page is word salad that is not well connected to the policy. I feel like those that do declare a COI tend to get judged at least a five times more than a regular user and get indeffed at first misstep with the exception of a few well-established users. There is overall a very hostile environment towards COI in Turkish Wikipedia community. To give a comparison, COI in English Wikipedia is like a drug addiction. It’s worrying but there are a lot of resources to make the user a good contributor. Being accused of COI in Turkish Wikipedia is treated like the worst crime one can commit and the extremely opaque admins and the general apathy doesn’t help. ~2026-10862-96 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This U4C request seems to have unleashed a can of worms, judging from Adem’s post on village pump. Even if this gets declined, the U4C should launch a investigation towards WMTR as that’s in scope.~2026-11181-95 (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s me again. The endorsement of the block came through a slim margin. Both sides (unblock-endorse) seem to be vocal and U4C seems to be needed to mediate a solution. I think U4C also should hold a vote to make the COI policy less strict to prevent such issues in the future. I also would like to request a vote on WMTR as it seems to have gotten corrupted.--~2026-17459-86 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Adem)

I would like to begin by raising a procedural concern regarding the admissibility of this case. As far as I can observe, this matter appears to have been brought before the U4C without fully exhausting local dispute resolution mechanisms. Additionally, claims suggesting that the user’s talk page was not available for communication should be treated with caution. There is no clear indication that the user herself requested or attempted to use standard appeal channels in line with established practices. Given that the user is an experienced contributor, including involvement in VRT, it would be reasonable to expect familiarity with the appropriate procedures for block appeal and dispute resolution.

It is also important to underline that, according to the local discussions, there is broad agreement that a conflict of interest concern exists. However, the way this consensus is represented in this case file does not fully or accurately reflect the nuances of the discussion. In particular, issues raised during processes involving admins and evaluations by community members are often translated selectively or inaccurately, leading to a risk of misrepresentation. This pattern of behavior brings us to the issues of cherry-picking and disinformation. The statement claimed by the complaining user above, "During the local appeal, User:Immortalance noted that the timing of the block could be related to affiliate developments rather than my on-wiki edits, and User:Adem openly stated that this block was a result of “Significant developments took place over the course of 5 years related to Digital Information Association." It's a clear lie. On February 18, 2026, I wrote the following on the administrators' noticeboard : "Unfortunately, the process isn't "simply" like that, @Immortalance. Independently of this block process significant developments have taken place over a 5-year period, spearheaded by Basak, @Kibele. You can read the details here. Best regards." The 34,000-byte title I wrote about structural problems on the village fountain does not contain any statement regarding a COI. Furthermore, Basak's articles concerning conflicts of interest were never discussed in the WMTR Telegram group.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that I am unable to identify a clear and primary violation of the UcoC in this case. The matter appears to be fundamentally related to local policy enforcement, specifically conflict of interest, which has already been considered and decided upon within the local community framework. For these reasons, I think that this case does not fall within the mandate and scope of the U4C, as it does not appear to meet the criteria of the Universal Code of Conduct and I believe the case should be dismissed. I also wish to reiterate my request that the U4C give due consideration to the more serious UCoC-related concerns previously reported, which I believe warrant further review and appropriate action. Thanks. -- Adem (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@Basak: have you attempted to appeal locally? If so can you provide details/links? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I added explanation and link now, thank you.--Basak (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Basak: I think there is a misunderstanding, I moved your reply to the correct section but with this edit you deleted it, is it ok if I restore the text? --Civvì (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvì: Yes, Thank you very much. I added the reply back. I hope it is clearer?--Basak (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Basak:, but you are also welcome to post your replies here, this is the space intended for "discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members" --Civvì (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wooze: thanks for your response. I am glad you, Civvi, and I all agree that there is a local process that should happen. Disabling email and talk page access combined with the statement "Bu nedenle Vikipedi’nin temel politika ve yönergelerini sistematik biçimde ihlal ettiğin kanaatiyle hesabını süresiz olarak engelliyorum." might explain why Basak didn't try to appeal locally first. Can you share why you felt disabling the talk page and email was needed with this block and/or whether it would be possible to restore talk page access to allow for a block appeal (see 3.3.3 of the Enforcement Guidelines). Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wooze: maybe it is only a matter of translation but can you please point to me where in this page tr:Vikipedi:Çıkar_çatışması (which according to Wikidata links, is the local COI guideline) it is stated that users who do not declare their COI will be indef blocked? Maybe this is explained somewhere else? Personally I think that indef blocking a COI user is a bit disproportionate. Had the user already been warned or requested to declare their COI in the past? Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:,@Civvì: In submitting this case, I initially focused on addressing concerns about my editing practices. However, as indicated in the case discussion, affiliate politics and transparency concerns appear to be central to the matter. In this context, I would appreciate guidance on how to proceed. As the local appeal has not resulted in a resolution, I respectfully request that I be unblocked if my block was issued solely due to my editing practices and no issues are identified. If the block is related to another concern, I would appreciate a clear explanation of the reason so that it can be addressed appropriately. Alternatively, if the matter requires further local discussion or review, I am willing to await that process, provided that I am informed of the specific concerns and how I am expected to respond while blocked. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basak (talk)

@Wooze: after doing some research and reading some links about this matter, I believe that the requestee should have the opportunity to appeal on Wiki and be granted TPA. Currently, the only way to appeal is via VRT, but I think it would be appropriate to allow for a little transparency. Thanks --Civvì (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VRT Personnel's note

Filer Basak has submitted her block appeal on 28th February 2026 to Turkish VRT (info-tr). I informed @Wooze about the VRT request and texted them via Basak's talk page. For involved parties' information. @U4C, @Basak, @Wooze. Kadı Message 19:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Kadı Message 19:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: in the ongoing discussion at the Turkish Wikipedia Administrators’ Noticeboard regarding my indefinite block, my request has been limited to having my written statement shared on the Administrators’ Noticeboard so that it can be considered within the local discussion.

I did not intend to request that my user talk page be reopened. My intention is solely to ensure that my written statement is available to the community while the matter is being discussed locally, in line with the reviewers’ suggestion that the issue be handled through the local appeal process.

For transparency, I am also sharing here the document submitted to the Turkish Wikipedia Administrators’ Noticeboard as part of the ongoing local discussion: My statement

This is provided for information only. I am not requesting additional action from U4C at this stage.--Basak (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Basak: Thank you very much for the update. For now, I think we will continue to monitor the situation. We will evaluate how to proceed with this case after internal discussion. --Civvì (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The link which provided by filer Basak added to the Turkish Wikipedia's Administrators noticeboard. For involved parties' information. Kadı Message 10:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The local Administrators’ noticeboard discussion deadline was extended to 20 March 2026 ([1]). As a result, the local process is still ongoing. I will update the U4C if the local discussion reaches a decision.Basak (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Basak: it is not clear to me what "affiliate" you are talking about. According to this page Wikimedia movement affiliates there is a User Group in Turkey, what precisely is the other organization you are mentioning? --Civvì (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvì and Civvì:, yes — there is the Wikimedia Community User Group Türkiye (WMTR), which was recognized by the WMF in 2016. It is an informal group of Wikimedians without a formal governance structure.

In 2020, after Wikipedia was unblocked in Türkiye, some founding members of WMTR were encouraged by WMF staff to initiate more structured activities to raise awareness of Wikimedia projects and support contributors using WMF funding. To facilitate this, they established a legal association in order to be able to receive WMF funds. This organization is called Dijital Bilgi Derneği (DBD).

While WMTR has remained an informal group, the leadership of DBD has effectively taken on a coordinating role within WMTR. They have organized biweekly meetings open to all Wikimedians, as well as edit-a-thons, Wikipedia Education Programs at universities, and events such as the Wikimedia Hackathon and Wikimedia CEE Meeting.

These activities have primarily been organized by DBD leadership, with participation from Wikimedians who are not members of DBD but are part of the broader WMTR community or just the editor community.

I am referring to the organization that you can see listed as the recipient of annual grants, such as here:

Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/General_Support_Fund/Growing_the_wiki_spirit_in_Turkey,_2025 Basak (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Wooze and Elmacenderesi: what are your personal views on the outcome? Thanks and best regards, --Ghilt (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I would prefer for Basak to have a way to go through Turkish processes before the U4C considers the facts. I hope Wooze or some other Turkish administrator could help make that happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barkeep. I believe that, in this case, there are no reasons for revoking TPA and not allowing a local appeal. --Civvì (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards declining. I don't see any violation of the UCoC, but I believe it's possible that this situation comes from a lack of transparency in the relationship between the affiliate and the community. This is definitely something that should be dealt with locally, not by us. --Civvì (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are affiliates involved in this, so we have contacted the Affiliations Committee. Besides that, i don't see a u4c violation yet, so this probably isn't a case for us. Let's see Affcom's views. --Ghilt (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

The reason for the block is not related to the UCoC. Personally, I would have preferred the user to be granted TPA, but I see no issues with how the local appeal was handled following the VRT request. While there are grey areas and issues regarding the affiliate’s governance and the relationships between the affiliate, the fiscal sponsor and the community, these matters fall outside our remit. --Civvì (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In complete agreement with Civvì here. The case as described falls mostly outside our scope.--BRP^ever 13:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree that this case falls outside our scope. However, I think the principle of subsidiarity does cause me to decline this request. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This has been seen by the U4C. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]