Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Repeated CU abuse and lack of meaningful appeal on Turkish Wikipedia

This case is on hold. The U4C will start working on this case again after N/A (case will be closed after hold period).

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. 1denizakdemir (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

---

1denizakdemir

Description of the problem - (1denizakdemir)

I am writing to file a formal U4C case concerning my indefinite block from Turkish Wikipedia under the account name 1denizakdemir, imposed on March 30 2026 following a CheckUser investigation initiated by user Nanahuatl and conducted by Elmacenderesi.

Background

I was a contributor to Turkish Wikipedia with approximately 330 edits at the time of the CheckUser request. I have a declared conflict of interest statement on my user page and have actively participated in deletion discussions including nominating articles for deletion myself. My editing activity is consistent with a user acting in good faith.

The CheckUser request alleged that I was a sockpuppet of the dormant account Beachdirge. The CheckUser result confirmed an IP and behavioral trace analysis overlap between the two accounts. On this basis alone, I was indefinitely blocked.

1. Block imposed without evidence of abusive sockpuppet use — violation of VP:KUKLA and global CheckUser Policy

Under Turkish Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy (VP:KUKLA) and the global CheckUser policy, a positive CheckUser result does not in itself justify a block. The relevant question is not whether two accounts belong to the same person, but whether that person has used multiple accounts in an abusive manner e.g., to double-vote, to evade a block, or to create a false appearance of consensus.

No such behavioral evidence was presented at any point in the case thread. The request was based on the observation that I had opened articles near the notability threshold and engaged frequently in discussions. This does not constitute evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. A CheckUser result confirming IP overlap between two accounts tells us only that both accounts may belong to the same person. It does not tell us that any policy violation occurred. Proceeding directly from a positive CheckUser result to an indefinite block, without identifying any abusive conduct, is not supported by either local or global policy.

2. Technical defense ignored (Eduroam and CGNAT)

I am a university student who regularly edits Turkish Wikipedia via Eduroam, a network infrastructure shared by hundreds of users under a single IP address. I raised this defense publicly in the case thread before the block was enacted. It was not addressed. The prior U4C case concerning Turkish Wikipedia (Dispute over admin and CU abuse on Turkish Wikipedia, closed July 2025) explicitly documented that CGNAT infrastructure is widespread in Turkey and that IP overlap alone is an unreliable basis for sockpuppet conclusions. Multiple experienced CheckUsers from other wikis reached the same conclusion in that case. Elmacenderesi, who conducted the CheckUser in the present case, was a named party in that prior case and was privately advised by the U4C to reconsider the methodology. Despite this, the same approach was applied here without any engagement with my stated technical rebuttal. Notably, Turkish Wikipedia's own block appeal guide (FAQ S4) explicitly acknowledges that university networks use shared IPs and that innocent users may be affected. This is the very defense I raised, which neither the CheckUser nor the blocking administrator did engaged with.

3. Systemic pattern — UCoC Section 3.2 and prior U4C case

This case does not occur in isolation. The U4C noted in its decision on the prior Turkish Wikipedia case that a pattern of persistently failing to assume good faith could constitute a violation of UCoC Section 3.2 (Abuse of power, privilege, or influence). The present case, taken together with the prior one, constitutes precisely such a pattern. The same CheckUser, even after a U4C intervention and private recommendation to revise methodology, has applied the same flawed approach. Using IP overlap without evidence of policy violation, without accounting for shared network infrastructure, and without engaging with publicly stated technical defenses to reach the same outcome: an indefinite block of a contributor against whom no abusive conduct has been demonstrated.

The block was imposed by administrator Doğu immediately following Elmacenderesi's report, without any public response to my technical defense.

4. Single active CheckUser — no local peer review possible

As of the time of filing, Turkish Wikipedia has only one active CheckUser (Elmacenderesi); the other two holders of the right (Vincent Vega and Uncitoyen) are both inactive.[1] In the prior U4C case, the U4C established that a valid local enforcement structure must be large enough to be able to form a consensus. A single active CheckUser cannot meet this standard. There is therefore no local mechanism capable of independently reviewing Elmacenderesi's methodology or conclusions, which further demonstrates that this case cannot be resolved locally.

5. Addressing the U4C's prior position on sockpuppetry The U4C has previously stated that sockpuppetry alone does not constitute a UCoC violation Rapsavunucusu3, February 2026 and Dispute over admin and CU abuse on Turkish Wikipedia, July 2025. This case does not dispute that position. The claim presented here is not that the block was wrong (though it was) but that:

• The same CheckUser (Elmacenderesi), having received a direct private recommendation from the U4C to revise methodology, has continued to apply the same flawed approach. This constitutes a pattern of abuse of advanced rights under UCoC Section 3.2, which goes beyond any individual block decision.
• The structural conditions that make local appeal impossible (a single active CheckUser, no independent review mechanism, and an appeal process directed exclusively at the blocking administrator) have been raised in prior cases and remain unaddressed. This is not a local dispute that can be resolved locally; it is a systemic problem that has now produced a second identifiable victim following a U4C intervention that was apparently disregarded.

Previous attempts at a solution - (1denizakdemir)

1. I raised my Eduroam/shared IP defense publicly in the CheckUser case thread before the block was enacted. This defense is explicitly recognized as legitimate by Turkish Wikipedia's own block appeal guide (FAQ S4). It received no response from the CheckUser or the blocking administrator.
2. I noted in the same thread that the Beachdirge account carries a TBB (Clean Start) template, and that under local policy not all alternative account usage is improper. This was not addressed.
3. Administrator Doğu enacted the block without publicly engaging with either of my defenses.
4. Under Turkish Wikipedia's block appeal guide, the only available appeal route is to contact the blocking administrator directly. No independent review mechanism exists for CheckUser-based blocks. This means that once administrator Doğu enacted the block, no meaningful local recourse was available to me.
5. Two formal unblock requests were filed on 30 March 2026 and 1 April 2026. Both were rejected by administrator Doğu. The first rejection cited the absence of a public declaration linking the two accounts which is a requirement that does not exist under Turkish Wikipedia's Clean Start policy (VP:TBB). The second rejection cited the fact that I did not confirm ownership of the Beachdirge account during the appeal, again, VP:TBB explicitly states that users who perform a clean start are under no obligation to declare the connection between their accounts. Both rejections are therefore inconsistent with local policy. My TPA is now revoked, and I cannot get in contact with the administrators publicly.
6. I filed another unblock request through VRT[2], and Doğu rejected it once more, citing the part of VP:TBB that states that to initalize a "real" clean start users are expected to engage in new areas, avoid past disputes, and adhere to community guidelines. Then he claimed that I continued activities that could be interpreted as sockpuppeting and have not refrained from exhibiting Beachdirge’s behavioral patterns. This rejection once again refused to engage with my argument of me not violating VP:KUKLA, so I attempted to send another VRT request (Ticket#2026040910013011), asking for another sysop to deal with this case since Doğu repeatedly refuses to provide evidence for the supposed crime that lead to my infinite ban. This later VRT request got denied, and the VRT member that responded to it informed me that there is no other operation that can be done through VRT.
7. As of the time of filing, Turkish Wikipedia has only one active CheckUser, meaning there is no local peer review mechanism capable of independently evaluating the methodology applied in this case.

Suggested solutions - (1denizakdemir)

1. Reversal of my indefinite block, based on the absence of any demonstrated abusive sockpuppet conduct and the failure to engage with my technical defense prior to the block being enacted.
2. In light of the pattern established across this case and the prior U4C case, the U4C is respectfully asked to consider whether the CheckUser rights of Elmacenderesi should be reviewed, given the repeated failure to apply the behavioral evidence requirement of the global CheckUser Policy following a direct U4C recommendation to do so.
3. A structural recommendation that Turkish Wikipedia establish a transparent and independent appeal mechanism for CheckUser-based blocks.
4. A public acknowledgment by Turkish Wikipedia administrators that the block was enacted without sufficient evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, in order to protect the reputation of the blocked contributor and restore community trust.
5. A structural recommendation that Turkish Wikipedia establish or elect additional active CheckUsers, so that a minimum peer review capacity exists within the local enforcement structure.

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)

I believe this block is a violation of the global CU policy. The "other" account was not blocked and had a "fresh start" template. The checkuser check from the very beginning was not appropriate. Personally I tried to follow "Looking out for fellow contributors: Lend them a hand when they need support, and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct." but unfortunately I was completely ignored by the associated advanced right holders, whom I happen to be in a situation of dispute due to Basak's case. I believe 1denizakdemir is a good-faith contributor and has the potential to help with multiple deficits of the TrWiki. The block needs to be lifted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: Here is another potentially controversial CheckUser check from Elmacenderesi without a listed puppetmaster, again initiated by @Nanahuatl's complaint. Two community members @TarantaBabu and @Kızıl question the action on similar grounds to the present case, suggesting that there is no abuse of multiple accounts here. The check brings two abandoned accounts with single digit edit counts. Elmacenderesi initially recommends "indefinite block". After some community member comments and not getting a clear endorsement from @Vincent Vega for an indefinite block, Elmacenderesi suggests detailed analyses by at least 2 admins before a decision to block the user or not. Had there not been sufficient community participation, the user could have been blocked now based on Elmacenderesi's initial recommendation. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note about claims by the admin who administered the ban: I do not have any off-wiki communication with 1denizakdemir. I only directed them to the local appeal, which can be seen on the page. Appeal directions should have been placed by the admin who gave the block, but since they failed to do that, I had to step in. The admin is not in a capable position to provide fair assessment of the situation against 1denizakdemir, due to the ongoing dispute between myself and the admin; since I have been actively defending the user. In spite of this situation, the admin handled the case by themselves, and handled the two consecutive appeals by themselves either. This constitutes an abuse of administrative authority, so it is within the scope of UCoC. There is an ongoing local complaint against the admin. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I just want to add this as an example to the pattern, which I just randomly came across during the last U4C election. The candidate says they were mistakenly blocked from TrWiki. It is a dated example, but it appears to be a part of the same problem. Based on my initial check it looks like a mistaken CU block that lasted for 3 months. This is not an example I digged the archives for; this is just something I randomly ran into. I was hoping for some self reflection from our advanced rights holders about how we can improve as TrWiki. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Some notes regarding the points raised

• I respect Vikiçizer a lot, but I believe it was a mistake to decline my local complaint against Doğu in just 1 day after I filed it. My complaint included a significant allegation that the blocking admin was in a conflict of interest when they blocked 1denizakdemir. They believed 1denizakdemir was associated with me and they were in an intense state of dispute with me. Moreover, the blocking admin was not active on the sockpuppet investigations page for more than a year, ignoring the page previously even when they were pinged the last year. I believe the admin did not knowingly abuse their power, but it is still an abuse of power since they ignored all my reminders about them being required to withdraw from the case. They declined 1denizakdemir's 4 separate attempts (2 talk page appeals, 1 informal note and 1 VRT request) after I reminded them that they needed to withdraw from the case. Now, I don't want to escalate the situation but we can't make progress if we don't openly talk about these. Summary: My local complaint about a UCoC violation by the blocking admin was declined, so it is within the U4C's scope to formally consider its appeal.
• The TrWiki appeals guide is linked from the official policy, and this linking from a community accepted policy gives it a status more than just an essay.

Thanks, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, I don't know you or 1denizakdemir, and I have had no communication with either of you, either on-wiki or off-wiki. This kind of claim goes beyond a personal attack and amounts to defamation, so please avoid making such allegations. My interaction with both of you unfortunately only started after this block, and I still don't understand what your personal issue with me is.
—Doğu ( m ) 15:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts on Doğu's reply above, and my earlier email to U4C

As I pointed out on the talk page, I think parties in dispute responding to each other directly in the other party's section does not conform to U4C page moderation norms, but I request an exception for Doğu's reply above. As indicated on the talk page, this reply shows that Doğu considers reminders about conflicts of interests to be personal attacks, and I had made similar reminders about Doğu's participation in Basak's case, reminding that they appeared to be closer to one side of the Adem-Basak dispute, and they were also the one who had nominated and got elected the very same admin whose action was being discussed. My reminders at that time may or may not be valid, but the important point is that it is highly likely that those were considered to be personal attacks by Doğu.

Separately, on April 9th I had sent the U4C an email, including my thoughs about Doğu's rejection of the third appeal by 1denizakdemir. Now, the responding U4C member asked me to post it publicly so the U4C can consider it, due to the norms about public cases. The statements below may overlap with some of the statements that I already made publicly on this page, but I'm posting it anyway in the chance that it may be helpful for this case.

From: The Joyful Tentmaker

Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Regarding Doğu's rejection of the third appeal by 1denizakdemir
To: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

Doğu has rejected an appeal by 1denizakdemir for the third time and I would like to share my thoughts about this rejection. Doğu claims that 1denizakdemir violated the conditions of a clean start, because they kept the same problematic behavior. I disagree. Main feedback received by Beachdirge was copyvio, and 1denizakdemir was much more careful about copyvio as far as I could observe compared to Beachdirge. They themselves nominated articles created by Beachdirge for deletion because some contained copyright violations. This is a good faith behavior and should be appreciated. More importantly, this rejection argument shows that the blocking was not a clear cut case, and Doğu should have refrained from this admin action because they are more than involved in the case, since they explicitly stated that they believe I have off-wiki contact with 1denizakdemir (which I reject), and they are in an intense state of dispute with me. My formal local complaint against Doğu (raising the above points about involved admin situation) was rapidly closed, and Doğu opened a counter complaint against me right after it, and it is still open. I believe Doğu is in an "abuse of power" situation even though they don't realize it. 1denizakdemir may have caused some mild disruption but in general they are very receptive to constructive feedback. Even the two accounts combined, they should be considered a "new user". They appear to be tech-savy and quick to discover things. My guess is they may have prior familiarity of the MediaWiki-like software, but that does not mean they are a multiple Wikimedia account abuser at all. They have niche interests, and these have the potential to balance and reduce TrWiki's known systemic biases (nationalistic, etc). But even without any of these, as the Wikimedia movement we are a global movement and it has been our promise to our donors and volunteers to do our best to recruit and retain good faith new joiners and contributors to our movement. Thanks so much for helping with this case. Best regards, TheJoyfulTentmaker

Thanks for your consideration, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Temporary Account)

Getting blocked because of a checkuser investigation request that didn’t list a possible puppetmaster is frankly quite absurd. There are examples of checkuser investigation requests which also did not list a puppetmaster either getting flagged with “needs more information” or rejected. There was a saying that said “Denetçilik olta atıp balık yakalamak değildir.” (Checkuser investigations are not fishing with a rod.) which can be seen at the top of the talk page of VP:Dİ but it seems like this is being forgotten.

I will be listing a few checkuser investigation requests which got rejected or flagged “needs more information” for not listing a puppet master from a few years back below. I think the block was false as it went against this established precedent.

This request which did not list a puppet master has been flagged "needs more information":

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:Denetçi_isteği/Dava/Dvrmartgr36

And this other request which also did not list a puppet master got rejected for all parties already being blocked. However, there is an important piece of text here, written by Vincent Vega (another checkuser) upon Kadı's pressing for a investigation regardless. Wooze said translations could be misleading in a previous request, so I will be attaching both the original text and my DeepL translation so that the committee can commit it's own translation as well.

Original text: "Denetçi aracı ihtimaller üzerine kullanılamayacak kadar ciddi ve kontrole tabi bir araç Kadı. Benim gerektiğinde Vakıf yetkililerine izah edip savunabileceğim bir argümanla dava açarsanız bakabilirim. Bir başka hesabı olduğuna dair herhangi bir şüphe bulunmaksızın "bir başka hesabı var mı diye bakalım" gibi bir argümanla denetleme yapamam. En azından "bu dava bazında, bu gerekçelerle" yapamam. Dediğim gibi ayrı bir dava ve daha isabetli, hedefe yönelik gerekçelerle olabilir. Ayrıca usülde iddia davası/tespit davası diye bir şey yok, kukla kullanımına bakıyoruz sadece. Zaten en baştan beri bu "dava" kelimesinin kullanılmasını doğru bulmuyorum. - Vincent Vega mesaj? 17.37, 29 Haziran 2024 (UTC)"

DeepL translation:

"The checkuser’s tool is too serious and subject to strict oversight to be used based on mere possibilities,Kadı. If you file a case with an argument that I can explain and defend to the Foundation’s officials when necessary, I can look into it. I cannot conduct an audit based on an argument like “let’s see if there’s another account,” without any suspicion that there is another account. At least not “based on this case and these grounds.” As I said, it could be done in a separate case with more precise, targeted grounds. Also, there’s no such thing as a “claim case” or “determination case” in procedure; we’re only looking at the use of a straw man. I haven’t thought it was appropriate to use the word “case” from the very beginning anyway. - Vincent Vega mesaj? 17.37, 29 Haziran 2024 (UTC)"

The request: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:Denetçi_isteği/Dava/Kolon_Tamil

From this piece of text, I think we can conclude that Elmacenderesi has contradicted Vincent Vega. The block needs to be revoked, an ArbCom or ArbCom-like structure needs to be implemented and said committee should look into the block. --~2026-19943-61 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I also would like to add an addendum to defeat any “cherry-picking” accusation which might come: there were indeed cases where sockpuppet investigations were carried out anyway despite not listing a puppet master because they were obvious troll LTA’s and the investigation was simply done to file them to a sockpuppet group. Like this for example:

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:Denetçi_isteği/Dava/60_saniyede_Fatma_ceylan_ve_kukla_kadrosu

However, as you can see from that example, such cases tend to be short, noncontroversial, straightforward. 1denizakdemir’s checkuser investigation had a lot of paragraphs and there was some pushback from members of the community. So how come did a regular user get filed the same type of request with an obvious LTA (checkuser investigation without a puppet-master listed) that was processed as if they were an obvious sock LTA?--~2026-20185-51 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the other feedback section of this case and the talk page of Basak’s case demonstrates a bigger problem which Barkeep raised in Umtcnyd case: Persistently not assuming good faith. Though I don’t know if a seperate case regarding that needs to be filed. ~2026-20516-18 (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt I believe getting there requires a decentralization of power and thus an implentation of ArbCom. However, it was previously rejected on the grounds of not enough people. Could an ArbCom with a smaller group of people can be managed which doesn’t sacrifice functionality? ~2026-20784-00 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Nanahuatl)

It seems like some people are in Wikipedia just to create conflict, not for contributing... Many users that contributed to this page are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia... Nanahuatl (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback from Robert McClenon

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that one of the purposes of the U4C is to deal with and assist communities that are having difficulty in governing themselves effectively. If the Turkish Wikipedia has three pending requests for cases, I think that that is a sign that the Turkish Wikipedia may be having difficulty governing itself effectively and may need U4C intervention or assistance. I would suggest that U4C open a preliminary case to look into these three pending requests to see whether it needs to intervene to assist the Turkish Wikipedia in governing itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Temporary Account 2)

I will make this a seprate thread, for I think that this is unconnected to the original thread. I would like to ask the U4C committee to re-evaluate Umtcnyd’s block during this three month period. I think that there are still mistakes to be corrected there. And whilst this is probably old enough to not warrant an action or looking into, I would like to ask the committee to evaluate Uncitoyen and the admins of that era’s stance against VanishedUser 19358256. I think there’s a still unremedied problem there.--~2026-49334-78 (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Hello, As a volunteer who previously served on the Ombuds Commission, I would first note that the complaint in question doesn't constitute a UCoC violation. It also falls outside the scope of your committee. Accordingly, this case should be declined on procedural grounds. I don't believe any further context is necessary at this stage.
—Doğu ( m ) 13:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

In addition to all this, there has already been an appeal on the local wiki, and a further local appeal can also be made through VRT. I also currently have a complaint on our local wiki against TheJoyfulTentmaker on the grounds of a UCoC 3.1.6 (Hounding) violation, as I believe they may have contributed to the bypassing of our local appeal mechanisms and to bringing this matter here.
—Doğu ( m ) 14:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I also would like to point out to the committee that this is the first time Doğu has (indirectly) informed me about further appeal possibilities. —1denizakdemir (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Good morning, generally speaking, when there's no UCoC violation, it's not in our jurisdiction. But if the appeal system doesn't work well (e.g. blocked talk page access without previous talk page abuse, unresponded VRT appeal requests or not enough information on appeals provided to blocked accounts), then it can look as a recurring issue in a power difference setting. That would fall in our jurisdiction (as possible power abuse). Because currently, many trwiki appeals come to the u4c. But we want the local community to be better equipped to decide these requests in a fair process themselves, and not the U4C. Under fair processes (by the rules, equal for all users, transparent, functional) and insufficient claims (i.e. no rule broken and no unproportional sanctions), an appeal to the U4C generally is declined. How can we get there? Ghilt (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Doğu I was looking at it a bit more, and did you perform the block, review the unlock, and also reviewed the VRT unblock request. While not being a CU yourself? BRP ^ever 13:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @BRPever, I reviewed two unblock requests. In both cases, I referred to the original rationale for the block and noted that the user was in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. No request submitted through VRT was ever forwarded to me. If a VRT appeal was reviewed, it must have been handled by someone else.
—Doğu ( m ) 17:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever If you are referring to the first VRT request, I reviewed it and declined it. You can read my rationale here.
—Doğu ( m ) 17:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If the user still believes that this block was incorrect, they may request an additional review from any currently active tr:wiki administrator. While I don't find the arguments presented here persuasive, in the interest of being constructive, this is the best recommendation I can offer at this time.
—Doğu ( m ) 17:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This process at trwiki is suboptimal, because a blocking admin always has a conflict of interest when handling an appeal of their own previous decision(s). Someone previously uninvolved should handle the appeal. Ghilt (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I sent a reply to the VRT response sent by @Kadı asking for exactly that

Dear Kadı,

It has been stated that, under https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:Hizmetliler#Hizmetli_i%C5%9Flemine_itiraz, administrators who are thought to have acted improperly can be contacted, and if no results are obtained, other administrators can be called upon to perform their duties. I wish to exercise this right and request that the other administrators take the matter seriously and consider my defense. I regret to inform you that I do not believe Doğu can offer any constructive advice on this matter. If the reason for the persistent rejection of my objection without my arguments being taken seriously is related to the U4C case I opened, I would also like to request that this be let known to me. I wish you all the best in your editing.

Sincerely,

1denizakdemir

(Ticket#2026040910013011) Apr 27 2026, 02:29. It remained unanswered. Perhaps the ticket was closed after it's first rejection and that's why it didn't reach them. I'm not too familiar with VRT's technicalities. On the other hand, previously @Doğu's response to this suggestion by @TheJoyfulTentmaker on this topic was met with, for the lack of a better word, anger.

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, please get a grip! Enough with your veiled harassment, and I don't accept your apology. What does "It would be very constructive if at least another administrator could re-evaluate the ban and the problem could be solved" even mean?! I am also an administrator in this community, and I carried out a fixed action with technical analysis due to a policy violation. @Vikiçizer, enough already, I don't want this user constantly harassing/interacting with me. ([3]).

He went on to tag 20 administrators. 1denizakdemir (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This complaint's already been reviewed locally by another administrator (@Vikiçizer). My action was taken as a direct implementation of a checkuser-based finding, not as an independent discretionary decision. Is the complaint directed at the specific action I carried out, or at the wider process and how other administrative reviews were handled?
—Doğu ( m ) 13:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was referencing TheJoyfulTentmaker's suggestion of letting another administrator handling the appeal and your reaction to that suggestion. I assumed that re-evaluation of the ban meant (re)considering the appeal or appeals. The general complaint is irrelevant for this discussion. Also it was not mine, therefore I cannot answer your questions regarding that. 1denizakdemir (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi again. I wanted to give an update. After Doğu (again, indirectly) informed me of the possible Ombuds Commision scope of this whole unfortunate situation, I sent a letter to them. @RoySmith from the OC informed me a few days ago by e-mail that while many of the items I mentioned in my letters to them fell outside the scope of the OC, they have found certain issues with checks performed by Elmacenderesi and have reminded him to comply more closely with the Checkuser Policy in the future. I think this resolution by the OC may support my claim of abuse of administrative authority and this abuse being a systemic pattern since they found issues with checkS not check performed by Elmacenderesi. 1denizakdemir (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• As another local user closely following the process, I want to make an important correction. This review resulted in an informative reminder, not a warning, for Elmacenderesi as no abuse was detected. Vincent Vega ^msg? 21:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Vincent Vega Considering this, and the previous cases that have come to us, would you and other CUs (@Elmacenderesi, @Uncitoyen) be interested in a CU training on best practice? BRP ^ever 15:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your kind idea and suggestion @BRPever:. I am always open to and supportive of education and learning new things. However, I have to reject the proposed training due to a complaint that has been presented in a strangely drawn-out manner. This could be perceived as "mandatory training" in our community and from my point of view, would mean accepting a clearly wrong action, which I do not accept.

  I would be very happy and enthusiastic to reconsider the training after the esteemed commission has dealt with this and similar complaints (which are solely aimed at undermining CU’s and administrators) as required. I believe there will be no problem in postponing the training you proposed for a while longer, as none of the CUs on Turkish Wikipedia are new or appointed; we all started in this role through community support and election, and we all have years of experience. Vincent Vega ^msg? 22:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for considering it. I do not think the use of CheckUser in this specific case can be considered 'abuse' under the UCoC. However, I do think there are aspects of the process that could be improved with better documentation.

  I also see having only two active CUs as a challenge in itself, since only a CU can properly review a CU block. That being said, I do not think much of this falls within our scope. I was hoping some stewards might be able to assist with this, and I would be happy to see this become a more common practice for new CUs across all wikis, not just trwiki.

  Many of us learned through experience, and having the opportunity to observe standard practices from other wikis would help us improve our own processes as well. BRP ^ever 05:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

In the CU request page I read (via automatic translation) that "Based on the technical analysis conducted, I would like to note that User:1denizakdemir shares the same IP address as User:Beachdirge; combined with behavioral profiling, this fully supports the identification of a sockpuppet account (here). But I do not find checks on the second user, how was the "technical analysis" done? --Civvì (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Striking this. I was not aware of some aspects of how CU works. --Civvì (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@1denizakdemir's block appeal is located in this VRT ticket. After, 1denizakdemir's confirmation, I will ping the trwiki administrators. @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF Kadı Message 21:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Ghilt (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt, I informed @Doğu about the appeal which sent via VRT. After 1denizakdemir's answer, the local block evaluation process will be started among uninvolved admins. Kadı Message 08:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF: The local block evaluation process started. I pinged and texted uninvolved sysops in Turkish Wikipedia. Therefore, the local evaluation process is continuing. Fyi.

cc: @Doğu, @Elmacenderesi, @1denizakdemir. Kadı Message 10:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@U4C I am happy to announce that my ban was lifted after other administrators evaluated the ban. I wish it didn't take a U4C case to come to this position, but it seems the appeal has been handled with opinions from two different administrators who were not involved. Thanks for your time and effort. 1denizakdemir (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF: 1denizakdemir's block removed by @Doğu. Therefore, the dispute among their block was resolved. In Turkish Wikipedia, there is an appeal system, but it is slow, this is true. As a community member, IMHO; the block appeal system will be improved and accelerated. Fyi. Kadı Message 16:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this update Kadi. I wrote about my thoughts on this topic on the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Doğu:, @Elmacenderesi:, I would like to understand some aspects of Trwiki blocking policy:

1. Is the policy as the page suggests the official policy of Turkish wikipedia?
2. A portion of this section of the policy machine translates to The option to prevent the user from editing their own talk page while blocked restricts them from making any changes—including submitting an unblock request—during the block period. This option is deselected by default and should generally not be enabled unless the open talk page is being abused by the blocked user. Is this correct? And is this part of the policy a regular practice among admins?
3. Part of this section machine translate to: To decide whether to grant the appeal, an uninvolved administrator independently reviews the circumstances that led to the block, the user's prior conduct, and any additional information provided by the blocked user or others. and this machine translates to As part of an unblock request, uninvolved users may discuss the block and call upon the blocking administrator to review the block, participate in the discussion, or provide further information regarding it. Since the purpose of unblock requests is to allow for review by third-party users, administrators should not reject unblock requests submitted by the users they have blocked. Are these correct? If yes, is it a regular practice among admins?
4. Part of this section states that blocks based on CheckUser or Oversight information may not be lifted by an administrator who does not hold those permissions unless they have obtained the approval of a CheckUser or Oversighter. Is this the correct interpretation based on machine translation?

Thank you for your time. :)--BRP ^ever 13:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever, this policy was updated on 13 December 2024. (See old policy) I was not active around that time, and I only noticed the update recently, after this case began. So if there is any concern being raised against me on that basis, I wanted to make that context clear. I was also one of the supporters of this policy, but I was aware that it had been formally accepted and updated on the policy page.
—Doğu ( m ) 13:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

No, nothing against you. I am trying to understand whether administrators are aware of these provisions and are following the processes described in this policy. My understanding is that these aspects of the policy are in line with the UCoC and its supporting guidelines. I am trying to figure out whether inconsistencies between current practice and the written policy might be one of the reasons we are receiving so many requests from trwiki regarding similar issues. Thanks, BRP ^ever 13:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt and @BRPever, I'm not fully sure in which direction this case is meant to proceed. Does your committee have a clear plan on what exactly is being examined here?

Are you reviewing whether the block itself was incorrect, or are you reviewing the block enforcement system more generally?

If the intention is to review the block action taken by the administrator, I'd note that this specific action has already been reviewed in a local process after being reported by another user. It was assessed by an uninvolved administrator in our local wiki process and closed with the conclusion that “no clear error by @Doğu can be identified.”

So I'd like to understand the motivation for re-examining this within your committee despite a completed local review. How can a decision made by an independent administrator in a local process regarding my complaint be disregarded in this way?
—Doğu ( m ) 13:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw, I really want to ask you a question, do you actually consider it appropriate for a user to come here and bypass all local wiki processes (including complaint and appeal steps), almost as if this were a higher court, and bring the issue here without exhausting any of those local routes? My understanding has always been that this is a place to come after all local options have been exhausted. What I'm seeing here is that if this case is reviewed here, then everything we do locally, including complaints and reviews, effectively loses its relevance. That would feel like a direct undermining of our local wiki processes.
—Doğu ( m ) 14:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

At least for me, I would have voted to decline this case if you had not reviewed both unblock requests and the subsequent VRT ticket and declined them yourself as the blocking administrator. To me, that would have been where all local routes had been exhausted. BRP ^ever 14:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The investigation is in early phase so we are observing different aspects of the case. Any updates to the status of the case will be reported here. Thanks, BRP ^ever 14:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever The second VRT request wasn't reviewed by me. How does that fit with the conclusion that all local avenues had been exhausted? The fact that the user was able to submit a second request and ask for review by a different administrator suggests that the process was still available.

I also don't understand why the complaint reviewed and closed by Vikiçizer continues to be disregarded in these discussions. That complaint concerned my actions and was evaluated by an uninvolved administrator on the local wiki, who concluded that there was no clear error on my part. If the outcome of that review carries no weight here, then what is the role of local review processes?

This is the part I'm struggling to understand. There were local mechanisms available. Some of them were used. A complaint regarding my conduct was reviewed and closed. Additional appeals remained possible. Nothing prevented discussion on the local wiki.

Given that, why was this case brought here before those local processes had fully run their course? If every blocked user can bypass local discussions, complaints, and appeals and come directly to the U4C, what is the expected role of local governance structures going forward? If local reviews, local discussions, and local decisions can simply be set aside, it becomes difficult to understand where the boundary between local and U4C jurisdiction is meant to be.
—Doğu ( m ) 14:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever, @Ghilt:

I will explain with a very simple example. 1denizakdemir was blocked at 04:35 on 30 March 2026 and opened this case at 22:51 on 30 March 2026.

Does this really seem credible to you as evidence that all local avenues had been exhausted? A user claiming that all local mechanisms and appeal paths were exhausted within 18 hours and 16 minutes, and then opening a case here as the first step, raises serious questions about that assumption.
—Doğu ( m ) 14:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Even this alone should have been a sufficient reason for you to decline this case, shouldn't it?
—Doğu ( m ) 14:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, this is only my opinion. This investigation is not against you; you just happen to be part of this case.

I am aware the user first came to U4C, but by the time I voted, local remedies had already been attempted and had failed, so there was no basis to suggest they try local processes first. I believe local measures were already exhausted when the case was accepted, which is why I could not vote to decline it as out of scope.

If this discussion is only going to continue down a critical path and we are unable to develop a better understanding of each other's positions, I will stop engaging in it here. BRP ^ever 14:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever, You're still avoiding the core question. How can local remedies be considered 'attempted and failed' within 18 hours and 16 minutes? Do you really find that reasoning plausible?
—Doğu ( m ) 14:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I just explained that. The case was not accepted in 18 hours and 16 minutes. BRP ^ever 14:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever, so shouldn’t you have rejected this case on the grounds that "this is not the first place it should be brought, it belongs in your local wiki"? Instead, you kept the case open, allowed the process to develop under your own oversight, and then accepted it. That is not a fair or acceptable process. For that reason, I also don’t consider it correct or fair for the committee to create that kind of situation and then accept a case within it.
—Doğu ( m ) 15:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Look, what your own page says is this: "Before submitting a public request, please consider if all other locally existing methods of reporting of the violation have been tried." In this case, procedurally, this case arrived here within 18 hours and 16 minutes. That is incorrect. The commission, instead of rejecting the case and warning the user about this mistake, allowed the case to mature and changed its course with its own actions.
—Doğu ( m ) 15:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF:

I would like to point to the instruction on the U4C case request page, which states: "Before submitting a public request, please consider if all other locally existing methods of reporting of the violation have been tried." In this case, the block was placed on 30 March 2026 at approximately 04:35 UTC, and the case was filed on the same day at 22:51 UTC, 18 hours and 16 minutes later.

I believe this case, opened within 18 hours and 16 minutes in apparent violation of U4C's own guidelines, is procedurally out of scope. This request, made without exhausting local appeal processes, is contrary to the rules and has created a negative perception about me personally. For this reason, I request that a Meta oversighter or administrator delete the case page and its associated talk page.

With all due respect, I request that your committee assign an oversighter to this case or call on an oversighter to review this request. As a result of this procedurally improper case, I have unfortunately been subject to reputational harm and feel that I have been personally targeted.
—Doğu ( m ) 15:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You have made your point and repeating it so much does not make it more convincing. I leave it to my colleagues to see if your comment about the speed of filing the case is persuasive. However, the u4c accepting a case you disagree with is not grounds for Oversight. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 From this comment, I understand it as suggesting that what I say, and how strongly I emphasize it, doesn't matter. If I'm to trust this committee and continue to support its existence in the future, this is important to me. If a case has been opened and accepted in a way that I consider procedurally improper, and if statements within that case create reputational harm about me, then who else is supposed to raise that concern if not me? You're now involved in this matter, and my request for Oversight can't be dismissed based on a single opinion.

At this point, I don't see this process as something I can continue to engage with constructively. As a whole committee, you have managed to discourage me; my trust in the committee unfortunately ends here. I wish you and the committee success.
—Doğu ( m ) 16:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear Doğu, i personally find the argument of 18h16min not sufficient by itself. The reasons are: the local routes had been used - and all were declined by you. Please understand that this does not seem fair to me because of conflict of interest. Also, we took our time in evaluating the situation. And the situation seems to be recurring in trwiki because we have received several similar case requests. On the talk page, we had a good discussion and i would like to continue that. In my opinion, it is in your own best interest to be part of the discussion compared to giving up one's opportunity to voice an opinion. So, please rethink your strategy and have a seat at the table. Ghilt (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

Accept votes

• Appeals should follow a fair procedure. Without conflict of interest and without ignoring or declining appeal requests (an exception may be sockpuppetry due to 'gaming the system'). Currently, it looks like systematic power abuse to me, that isn't limited to this one situation, but is a general problem. I hope this will be corrected by the trwiki admins or the community, so we won't have to intervene. --Ghilt (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is a good opportunity to discuss with the local community about ways to change and improve the appeals procedure. --Civvì (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• The appeal system is problematic, I think this case is a good opportunity to look into that.--BRP ^ever 12:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• To examine the appeals system, per above. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• After reading the discussion, I actually found several important points that need to be investigated.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline votes

• Per my votes on similar cases before the U4C at the moment, on the side of declining this specific case while making a motion regarding the broader trend on trwiki of harsh sanctions and limited appeal routes. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC) Moving to support. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• This doesn't really fall in our scope. I do think the concerns of limited appeal routes is valid since only a CU can properly review a CU-block, and I only see two of them active, but I agree with Ajr above on motion regarding broader trend.--BRP ^ever 05:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Motions

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

Findings of Fact/Main Motion

✅ Passed Motion — Date: 2026-06-22

---

Findings of fact

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) has received multiple requests concerning the block appeal process of Turkish Wikipedia. Based on observations of the appeal process, the U4C has discovered inconsistencies between current practice, written policies, and guides for blocked users about how to appeal a block.

The findings are as follows:

1. Turkish Wikipedia's blocking policy on unblocks requires that the administrator who reviews a block be uninvolved. It also states that blocking administrators should generally not close their own unblock requests.
2. Turkish Wikipedia's blocking policy states that the option preventing a blocked user from editing their own talk page is not enabled by default and generally should not be used except where the blocked user has abused access to their talk page.
3. The U4C has received several requests in which the blocked user's talk page access was initially revoked. The U4C has also observed cases where the blocking administrator reviewed unblock requests multiple times in relation to one of the current cases. (Examples include, but are not limited to, 1, 2, 3, and some private requests submitted to the U4C.)
4. Turkish Wikipedia's blocking policy states that blocks based on CheckUser or Oversight information may not be lifted by an administrator who does not hold those permissions unless they have obtained the approval of a CheckUser or Oversighter. The U4C finds that access to this information is important for fairly assessing these unblock requests.
5. Based on on-wiki activity over the past six months, only two CheckUsers are currently active on Turkish Wikipedia.
6. The information provided to blocked users across different pages (The blocking policy, the guide to appealing blocks - both linked in the documentation of the Unblock template - and in w:tr:MediaWiki:Blockedtext) are not completely consistent and do not provide sufficient clarity on the procedure a blocked user must follow and on how their request will be handled.

The appeal process described in the policy appears to be aligned with the UCoC and the Enforcement Guidelines. However, the inconsistencies between written policy, guides and practice need to be rectified to make appeals easier and fairer.

Based on these findings, the following motion shall be implemented to improve the current appeal process.

• Access to the talk page should be permitted unless the user has misused their talk page access or is likely to misuse it.
• Appeals of blocks should be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. The blocking administrator should generally not review appeals of their own block.
• The blocking administrator is not permitted to evaluate a second or subsequent unblock request or VRT ticket concerning their own block.
• Appeals in cases involving CheckUser evidence may be referred to the U4C if the parties involved in the unblock request are not satisfied with the resolution, and local CheckUsers are unable to review the request. This is because only CheckUsers have access to the private information required to properly evaluate such requests.
• If the four points above prevent the community from reviewing an unblock request, the community may refer the matter to the U4C for review.

The committee would be pleased to support the Turkish community, if requested, in any way it may find helpful in the process of revising its policies and guides.

Support

1. I support. I believe that this motion will provide the best path forward for re-aligning the current practice found in the Turkish Wikipedia's block appeals system with the Universal Code of Conduct. While I am sympathetic to the plight of the local advanced rights holders, serious issues remain inherent in the block appeals process at trwiki, as shown already by the evidence raised in this case, and by the statements we have already heard from involved and uninvolved parties. EggRoll97 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
2. This motion should help resolve a lot of the issues we have been seeing across trwiki requests as of late. --Ferien (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
3. I hope this motion will support the Turkish community in clarifying the appeal process and in ensuring that appeals are handled as much as possible at the local level and in a fair manner. --Civvì (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
4. I think this set of measures should address all the different issues around trwiki appeals: information, accessibility and fair processes. I would have loved to see more cooperation from trwiki admins, because that would have allowed for another approach at handling the appeal problems. --Ghilt (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
5. I spent a good amount of time studying local trwiki policies while working on these, and I think, if admins did follow the current blocking policy as written, the process would be in compliance with the UCoC, and most of the current and past cases would be or have been resolved locally.--BRP ^ever 10:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
6. After checking the local context, I believe these measures will work effectively to resolve the ongoing issues with the block appeals process. Borschts ^Talk 10:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
7. After reading and seeing the previous cases from the local community, this will help everyone to keep a well-documented appeal process. Superzerocool (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
8. I generally would be hesitant with these kind of motions on large wikis, but there have been well apparent issues in trwiki's block procedures and differences in policy vs practice. This would be a step in the right direction. EPIC (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Translation

Olgusal bulgular Evrensel Davranış Kuralları Koordinasyon Komitesi (EDKKK, U4C) Türkçe Vikipedi'nin engel itiraz süreciyle alakalı birden çok talep aldı. İtiraz sürecinin gözlenmesine dayanarak U4C; mevcut uygulamalar, yazılı politikalar ve engellenen kullanıcılar için engellemeye nasıl itiraz edileceğine dair kılavuzlar arasında tutarsızlıklar tespit etmiştir. Bulgular aşağıdaki gibidir: Türkçe Vikipedi'nin engelleme politikası, engel kaldırma için engellemeyi inceleyen hizmetlinin müdahil olmamış olmasını gerektirir. Ayrıca, engeli veren hizmetlilerin genellikle kendi engel kaldırma taleplerini kapatmamaları gerektiğini belirtir. Türkçe Vikipedi'nin engelleme politikası, kullanıcının kendi mesaj sayfasını düzenleme olanağının engellenmesi seçeneğinin varsayılan olarak seçili olmadığını ve engellenen kullanıcının mesaj sayfası erişimini istismar etmesi durumu dışında genellikle kullanılmaması gerektiğini belirtir. U4C, engellenen kullanıcıların kullanıcı mesaj sayfalarını düzenleme olanağının ilk etapta engellenmesini içeren birden çok talep aldı. U4C ayrıca mevcut vakalardan biriyle alakalı, engeli veren hizmetlinin engel kaldırma talebini birden fazla kez incelediği vakalar gözlemledi. (Örnekler bunlarla sınırlı olmamakla birlikte şunları içerir: 1, 2, 3 ve U4C'ye gönderilen bazı özel talepler.) Türkçe Vikipedi'nin engelleme politikası, Denetçi ya da Gözetmen bilgilerine dayalı olarak verilen engellerin bu yetkilere sahip olmayan hizmetliler tarafından, bir Denetçiden ya da Gözetmenden onay olmaksızın, kaldırılmaması gerektiğini belirtir. U4C, bu tür engel kaldırma taleplerini adil bir şekilde değerlendirebilmek için bu bilgilere erişimin önemli olduğuna kanaat getirmiştir. Son altı aylık Viki üzerindeki etkinliklerine dayanarak Türkçe Vikipedi'de yalnızca iki Denetçi günümüzde aktif durumdadır. Engellenen kullanıcılara çeşitli sayfalarda verilen bilgiler, (Engelleme politikası, engellere itiraz etme rehberi - iki sayfaya da Engel kaldır şablonunda ve w:tr:MediaWiki:Blockedtext sayfasında bağlantı verilmiş) tamamen tutarlı değildir ve engellenen kullanıcıların izlemesi gereken prosedürlere ve bu taleplerin nasıl ele alınacağına dair yeterli bir netlik sağlamamaktadır. Politikada açıklanan itiraz süreci Evrensel Davranış Kuralları (UCoC) ve Uygulama Esasları ile uyumlu gözükmektedir. Ancak, itirazları daha kolay ve adil kılmak için yazılı politika ve rehberler ile uygulama arasındaki tutarsızlıkların düzeltilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu bulgular doğrultusunda, mevcut itiraz sürecini iyileştirmek amacıyla aşağıdaki önerge uygulamaya konulacaktır. Kullanıcı mesaj sayfasına erişim olanağı kullanıcı bunu istismar etmediği veya istismar etme olasılığı bulunmadığı müddetçe engellenmemelidir. Engellere olan itirazlar müdahil olmamış bir hizmetli tarafından incelenmelidir. Engellemeyi gerçekleştiren hizmetli, genellikle kendi verdiği engellemelere olan itirazları incelememelidir. Engellemeyi gerçekleştiren hizmetlinin, kendi verdiği engel ile ilgili ikinci veya sonraki engelleme kaldırma taleplerini veya VRT biletlerini değerlendirmesine izin verilmemektedir. Denetçi kanıtı içeren durumlardaki talepler, engel kaldırma talebinde yer alan tarafların çözümden memnun kalmaması ve yerel Denetçilerin talebi inceleyememesi durumunda U4C'ye yönlendirilebilir. Bunun nedeni bu tür talepleri doğru şekilde değerlendirebilmek için gerekli olan gizli bilgilere yalnızca Denetçilerin erişebilmesidir. Eğer yukarıdaki dört madde topluluğu bir engel kaldırma talebini incelemekten alıkoyuyor ise, topluluk konuyu incelemesi için U4C'ye iletebilir. Komite, talep edildiği takdirde, Türkçe topluluğunu kendi politikalarını ve kılavuzlarını gözden geçirme sürecinde uygun bulacağı her şekilde desteklemekten memnuniyet duyacaktır.

On Hold

✅ Passed Motion — Date: 2026-09-07

---

The case Repeated CU abuse and lack of meaningful appeal on Turkish Wikipedia is placed on hold for a period of three months, during which period the U4C will examine random samples of blocks made on the Turkish Wikipedia, the effectiveness of the appeals system, and other factors relevant to the Turkish Wikipedia's block appeals process. If the U4C takes no further action within these three months, this case will be automatically closed.

Translation

Türkçe Vikipedi'de tekrarlanan denetçi suistimali ve anlamlı itiraz imkânının bulunmaması başlıklı dosya, üç aylık bir süre için askıya alınmıştır. Bu süre zarfında U4C, Türkçe Vikipedi'de uygulanan engelleme kararlarından rastgele seçilen örnekleri, itiraz sisteminin etkinliğini ve Türkçe Vikipedi'nin engelleme itiraz süreciyle ilgili diğer faktörleri inceleyecektir. U4C bu üç ay içinde herhangi bir işlem yapmazsa, bu dosya otomatik olarak kapatılacaktır.

Support

• I think the trwiki community is on the right path. But i will keep watching the process. --Ghilt (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• I support, and I would like to take this as a first step towards closing this case. I am impressed with the work of the Turkish Wikipedia admins in reducing the amount of blocks that are issued with talk page revocations, and I think the overall problem is unlikely to repeat. The three month hold period will allow us to take a look and make sure this is a permanent change, and then close the case formally. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict.) We have been reviewing some blocks already, and I am pleased that trwiki admins have been very responsive in our contact with some of them on this. Naturally the main motion will still take time to bed in, and keeping an eye can ensure all admins are up to date on it as far as possible. --Ferien (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Per above. Borschts ^Talk 20:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Per EggRoll97 comment Superzerocool (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

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.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, --Civvì (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• After 5 out of 8 members voted, the case was accepted and the investigation will begin.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Notification of the motion to the trwiki community: link --Civvì (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)