Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Unjust NPOV block and systematic failure to engage with unblock requests in Turkish Wikipedia

This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Mors et Vita (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply	Filer (no diff required)
Dr. Coal (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Mors et Vita (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply

Mors et Vita

Description of the problem - (Mors et Vita)

Hello,

Approximately two months ago, my account on Turkish Vikipedi was blocked for a period of three years by a user named @Dr. Coal, on the grounds that I had allegedly been making systematically biased edits. The same user had previously imposed a one-year block on me for similar reasons. During that earlier one-year block, they also disabled my talk page, thereby preventing me from presenting any form of defense. Although I attempted to contact them during that period, they never reopened my talk page. Moreover, as they did not have an email address available on Vikipedi, I tried to reach them through alternative means but was unsuccessful. After my one-year block expired, I would like to emphasize that I did not engage in any disputes with them on Vikipedi; instead, I focused solely on the articles I was interested in and generally maintained a reserved stance, avoiding discussions. While I acknowledge that the one-year block may have had justifiable grounds, I firmly believe that this new three-year block has been imposed on entirely unjustified grounds.

When Dr. Coal issued the three-year block, they once again disabled my talk page, effectively depriving me of the opportunity to defend myself. Only after receiving certain criticisms did they reopen my talk page, and that too after a full month. Although I explained to the user that the reasons for the block were flawed and provided detailed responses to the allegations against me, they did not offer any substantive counterarguments to refute my statements and merely responded with a brief "declined".

Every individual has the right to express their views freely, provided that they do not harm others and maintain a respectful tone. In this context, I believe that the user Dr. Coal has abused their administrative authority in my case. Despite my pointing out that there were users who did not share their opinion—just as there were those who supported it—they chose to ignore those perspectives. Rather than addressing the validity of the block itself, they failed to present any arguments that would refute my statements. Furthermore, while they appeared more lenient and accommodating toward certain users during this process, they adopted a noticeably harsher and more pessimistic approach toward me.

Additionally, throughout this entire process, no other administrator on Vikipedi has intervened; they have effectively remained silent. The only exception was an administrator named @Anerka, who, in a sincere and constructive manner, pointed out some of my incorrect actions on a particular article. I acknowledged their remarks, agreed with them, and offered my apologies both to them and to other users. Despite this, neither Dr. Coal nor the other administrators provided any response and continued to remain silent. Although, in the past, they have lifted blocks imposed on certain users by assuming good faith, in my case, good faith has not been assumed, and this stance has been persistently maintained.

I do not claim to be a flawless user; however, being accused of "systematically making biased edits" and receiving a three-year block as a consequence is both excessive and unjust. Why would someone who has already served a one-year block intentionally seek to harm the platform? Some users have also acknowledged that my genuine intention has been to contribute positively rather than to cause harm.

Unfortunately, Turkish Vikipedi is a very strict environment in this regard. Some blocks are imposed not to protect the platform, but for other purposes. Users are frequently discouraged, and their motivation is diminished. As a result, many articles on the platform have not significantly improved for years. Considering that public trust in Vikipedi in Turkey is already limited and its level of development is evident, I believe that the attitudes adopted by Vikipedi administrators are highly problematic.

The purpose of writing this message is to request that the esteemed members of the U4C intervene in this matter. Incidents such as this are not resolved within Turkish Vikipedi; therefore, it is not reasonable to expect us to resolve them internally. Although I have tried all available local avenues, I have not reached a resolution; more precisely, no resolution is being produced. You may also review the process in detail yourselves. Finally, I would also like to state the following: when I informed the administrators on Vikipedi that I would apply to the U4C at a time when I was available, an administrator named @Vincent Vega remarked that "it would not be of any benefit"; however, I was unable to understand what he meant by this. Despite the fact that two months have passed since my block, I have taken the time and effort to write this extensive statement here and am earnestly defending my rights. I respectfully request that you give due consideration to my appeal. I will continue to defend my rights. My request is that this three-year block, which I firmly believe to be an erroneous decision, be lifted.

Sincerely.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Mors et Vita)

My prior attempts to seek a resolution consisted of addressing all active Vikipedi administrators -primarily the administrator concerned- on my talk page and explaining the situation. As my talk page had been closed and my right to defend myself thereby restricted, I was compelled to submit my initial response using a temporary and anonymous account. You may review all correspondence from this period on my talk page at the link provided here.

Dr. Coal

Previous attempts at a solution - Dr. Coal

Ferien, I'm here responding upon your request, but I cannot do this every single time when an unhappy blocked user seeks attention. So, I respectfully recommend conceptualising an additional step as preliminary to prevent wasting time and effort as if we already haven't on the local project. Steps and key points are as follows:

On 30. January 2026, there had been an edit war between users Beyoglou and Mors et Vita, the applicant, on the article "Yılmaz Güney" .
I sent both users relevant (edit war) warnings (tr:Özel:Fark/36730660 and tr:Özel:Fark/36730663), applied full protection on the article for three days (tr:Özel:Fark/36730658), and invited them to the discussion page (tr:Özel:KalıcıBağ/36730681#c-Dr._Coal-20260130233100-İçerik_anlaşmazlığı_ve_sayfa_koruması). Please note that this invitation was written under a section which was also about a dispute between aforementioned users, led to a resolution by Anerka, one of the admins of our community.
Below of my invitation, Beyoglou cooperated on a short notice but Mors et Vita had not responded even if he was online and editing. In the process, Nanahuatl and Delbatros also shared their insights, confirming violation of content policies, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
After waiting for almost four days, I concluded the discussion with a note (tr:Özel:Fark/36750830), blocked the applicant for three years on grounds of WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations, and let him know (tr:Özel:Fark/36750831). His previous block with the same reason was for one year and the user interface had a default of five years, but I thought that five years would be too long, and three years seemed reasonable. While concluding that discussion, I also mentioned Anerka, Vincent Vega, and Bjelica, three admins who had knowledge of previous disputes on the same article. Bjelica responded and agreed with the conclusion (tr:Özel:Fark/36752343).
- Since this is not my "first dance" with the user, I blocked his talk page as well for the first one month of the block period. This had two reasons: (1) Despite of editing on the project, he had not participated in the resolution of dispute of which he had caused while the other party of the dispute and also two different users outside that dispute had. And as we are all volunteers, we cannot run towards a user at their will, "when they feel like sharing". (2) Accordingly, main purpose was to prevent the applicant's impulsive reactions with which some of us are familiar and which would lead us nowhere but fallacies and even personal attacks. (They did not, by the way, three days after I had unblocked his talk page: tr:Özel:Fark/36872262) Even Beyoglou, who had not known that I would unblock the applicant's talk page later and had wanted me to consider this, told (tr:Özel:Fark/36889911): "Coal seems to have known." ("Coal'un varmış bir bildiği.") By the way, unblocking the talk page had nothing to do with "receiving certain criticisms" as implied by the applicant above.
Within the first month of the block (on the thirteenth day), the applicant requested unblock with a temporary account (tr:Özel:Fark/36810864), which I examined and responded along with his VRT request (tr:Özel:KalıcıBağ/36815655#c-Dr._Coal-20260217174100-Kadı-20260217144300). Please note that there had been a revert war because the applicant used a temporary account, which was in good faith I think, and on his last revert, the applicant told the other party of the dispute to "plead" (See the summary: "savunmanızı yapın" - tr:Özel:Fark/36811878) - not exactly a behavioural pattern to fit an unblock request and, unfortunately, when requesting an unblock, telling about irrelevant edit stories so on and so forth would not be of help. I simply had not seen enough to consider an unblock, so it stayed. (An unblock request, as befits the name, is a "request" and may be accepted or rejected. In other words, we are not here to grant every wish to make a blocked user happy, are we? Because I'm not the one who violated WP:OR/WP:NPOV several times.) By responding the user's request, I also stated that any other admin was welcome to reconsider the process and the block.
On 3. March, I wrote a message to the applicant informing about the unblock of his talk page (tr:Özel:Fark/36861013). I also explicitly stated that since I examined and rejected his previous unblock request, it would be accurate for another admin to examine any further possible unblock requests. Because I know by heart, if I reject his unblock request one more time, that would be just another reason to come here, to the "court of appeal", i.e., U4C. (Well, nothing seems to have changed in practice, has it?)
I especially have not responded to the user after his threat with U4C, I never do, because that would cause every unhappy user to do so and expect something in their favour. I only retracted his violation of personal attack and added this reason to the block log. On 10. March, Anerka as an admin patiently told him about his violation, i.e., the reason of the block. After a calm and smooth response to Anerka, I find it interesting that the user applied here with an "unjust NPOV block" allegation. It seems that no one is right except for the applicant himself.

Dr. Coal (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Hello. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate for me to do this, but I would like to post a response here. One of our community administrators, @Anerka, drew my attention to some mistakes I had made on a single article (Yılmaz Güney). When Anerka pointed this out, I only then became aware of the situation, because a long time had passed since the dispute she had previously resolved, and due to my one-year block I had completely forgotten about it. No one other than Anerka reminded me of this. I already told this to Anerka and apologized both to her and to the other users, including Dr. Coal. I even promised that I would no longer make extensive or controversial edits to the relevant article. Being ignored again after apologizing, however, has been quite unsettling for me.

Another issue that has troubled me from the very beginning is this: the users mentioned by @Dr. Coal implied that I had been making systematically biased edits across Vikipedi, even though they had no evidence to substantiate such a claim; and unfortunately, Dr. Coal endorsed this without providing any justification.

Following Dr. Coal's invitation, I had explained in detail—through my objection there—why I did not participate in the discussion despite being online and making edits. You may review it as well: I intended to join the discussion at the earliest opportunity available to me. I had never imagined that this process would lead to a new block. I find it wrong that Dr. Coal closed the discussion and blocked me without waiting for my defense. He could have invited me to the discussion again and emphasized the seriousness of the matter; this would not have been difficult.

Please do not forget: my U4C case is not a "threat", but simply an attempt to "defend my rights". My use of the phrase "unjust NPOV block" in the title stems from my desire to emphasize that this situation is a "misunderstanding". If I did not genuinely believe this, I would not still be here, nearly three months after my block, continuing to pursue this matter.

Dr. Coal, I had already issued a comprehensive apology after Anerka's message on my talk page—you have likely seen it. I can once again apologize before the esteemed members of the U4C for everything; that is not a problem… I apologize to you. After writing this, I will try to follow the solution you have suggested. I will use the relevant template on my talk page and request the removal of my block from there. I will ensure that similar disputes do not occur again. Please set aside your determination "not to get involved in this matter"; I cannot understand that stance. I kindly ask you to believe in my sincerity and good intentions. Let our Vikipedi prevail… Mors et Vita (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other Feedback from 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) 04:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Other feedback (Temporary Account)

There are 6 declines and the systematic problem underneath is being dealt with elsewhere. Isn’t it safe to assume that the case has been declined?--~2026-37793-27 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@Mors et Vita: please go through the local processes described here: tr:Vikipedi:Engellere_itiraz_etme_rehberi#Engel_kaldırma_talebinin_kötüye_kullanımı, users without access to their talk page can contact the local VRT via email. Thanks --Civvì (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Hello @Civvì. I have followed the local process you suggested, but it has not led to any outcome. During my previous block, I repeatedly tried the VRT route, yet received no response from the administrator involved - indeed, no communication at all. In my current situation, VRT does not seem to be of much help either. The administrator in question, along with the other administrators, appears to be maintaining a persistent and inflexible stance. Thanks. Mors et Vita (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Dear @Civvì, @Ferien, and other U4C members – I would like to respectfully remind you that, although nearly two weeks have passed, my case has not yet been addressed. I would appreciate your valued opinions on the matter. Thanks. Mors et Vita (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Dear @Civvì, @Ferien, and other U4C members – I wonder why my case has not been taken into consideration until now. I would be happy if you give an answer. Even though I emailed the administrators at Turkish Vikipedi, I cannot receive any response from them either. Mors et Vita (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Hello Mors et Vita, I am not a voting member, so I cannot make any decision on this case, however I have nudged Dr. Coal for a response given the lack of one at this point to help better inform voting members. --Ferien (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)reply

I understand @Ferien, thank you. I tagged you on this page because you replied earlier. Dr. Coal hasn't received the local notification yet. Sincerely. Mors et Vita (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)reply

I have now given Dr. Coal a local notification as well. --Ferien (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Dr. Coal, this case opened almost 4 weeks ago. Could you please consider making a response? --Ferien (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello @Ferien. First of all, I wanted to tag you directly. It has been more than two months since I opened this U4C case, which is unfortunately a very long time. About a month ago, I submitted an unblock request on the Turkish Vikipedi and appealed to the administrators there. However, I believe they have still not reached a decision, likely because the outcome of my U4C case remains uncertain. Therefore, I would respectfully like to ask the esteemed members of the U4C to review and conclude this case as soon as possible. Having to wait for such a long time both here and on the Turkish Vikipedi is causing me considerable frustration and disappointment. In the hope that they will see this message, I would also like to tag all members of the committee. Thank you for your time and attention. I wish you all a good day. (@Barkeep49, @BRPever, @Civvì, @Dbeef, @Ghilt, @Ibrahim.ID, @Luke081515, @Denis Barthel, @PBradley-WMF) Mors et Vita (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Mors et Vita, I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to this case, but as I said earlier on, there isn't much more I can do as a non-voting member. As may be becoming clear, a few of us have noted the number of trwiki appeals cases being bought to the committee lately, so we are considering how to handle these generally. --Ferien (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you @Ferien. I hope you get results as soon as possible. Mors et Vita (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Update: The user's recent unblock request on trwiki has been declined by another admin on the 9. June on the grounds that he had not shown any reason why the block was not necessary anymore. Regards, Dr. Coal (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Despite having offered a general apology to both the community and the administrators, and having provided assurances regarding my future conduct, I do not agree with the administrator's decision to reject my request. I also believe that the reasoning provided for the rejection is flawed. Other than expressing my apology, acknowledging my mistakes, and demonstrating my understanding of the concerns raised, I am unsure what further evidence I could possibly provide to show that my block is no longer necessary. At this stage, there is little more I can do beyond expressing genuine remorse and a commitment to act differently in the future. My request was simply that my block be lifted and that my future contributions be closely monitored. Furthermore, there have been numerous cases on the Turkish Wikipedia in which users who acknowledged their mistakes, expressed remorse, and apologized were granted another opportunity and had their blocks lifted. In the present case, however, a similar approach does not appear to be being applied. I would like to respectfully draw attention to this important point as well. I respectfully ask both administrators (@Dr. Coal, @ToprakM) to carefully consider my statement and to reach the decision I am seeking. Mors et Vita (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I would point out that we do not need to see a systemic failure on trwiki for us to respond because trwiki does not have a high level decision making body. The Enforcement Guidelines setup certain expectations about how appeals are handled. I am concerned at this moment across several case requests about how appeals on trwiki are being handled; there may be some opportunity for improvement. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Accept votes

Decline votes

The existence of appeals processes (VRT in the case of blocked talk page access) and engagement/confirmation of other admins suggest that the scope of the U4C here would be to determine if there is a systemic failure to enforce the UCOC. The blocks issued at trwiki do seem on the harsher side from my perspective. Multiple years, restricted talk page access, etc. are all characteristics I would expect to see after previous blocks and attempts at resolution. Ideally a block should also be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator to preserve fairness. But I do not see sufficient evidence of a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC in these actions. As such, voting decline for myself - though I may present a motion as part of this to remind trwiki administrators to take proportionate enforcement actions and to ensure that local appeal processes are robust and allow for independent review. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)reply
I have been observing this case since its creation and can certainly sympathise with the initial conditions of the block. Dr. Coal was directly asked to avoid revoking talk page access in advance, yet still did so a matter of weeks later for this user, and I am not convinced that trying to prevent the applicant's impulsive reactions was a good reason to revoke talk page access in this case. Regardless, talk page access was restored, and another administrator has now been able to review this request. Appeals generally are being reviewed in another case. I am becoming more confident that this specific case can be reviewed and resolved locally, so I do not think opening a case is needed here. --Ferien (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The user in this case has now had the ability to make an appeal regarding their block, and it has been declined by another admin. I don't think there's a reason for us to become involved here, as the community has shown it can handle this block itself. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I as others here continue to be frustrated with parts of the trwiki block appeal process, but the block has been appealed locally. Other than that, there are no visible UCoC violations not already handled by the other case and our remit ends here. EPIC (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
We have already covered the appeal system in our other motions in regards where it can be improved. This specific case has been reviewed by an uninvolved admin, so I do not see our further involvement necessary here. I largely agree with EggRoll and Ferien up there.--BRP^ever 10:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Not right now. On this particular case nothing more we can do, and like BRPever said we already covered the system improvement part elsewhere. -Borschts^Talk 10:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
This appeal was handled at the local level, and the procedural issues and the ways to resolve them were addressed in the motion, there is no need for further involvement. --Civvì (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The appeal system has been adressed. I think, our job ends here. --Ghilt (talk)

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.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, Ferien (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply

With 8 declines, a majority is met, and this case is declined. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply