Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Dispute over admin and CU abuse on Turkish Wikipedia

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

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Umtcnyd (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Vincent Vega (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)
Elmacenderesi (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)
Anerka (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)
Dr. Coal (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 Umtcnyd (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umtcnyd

Description of the problem - (Umtcnyd)

I am writing to file a formal U4C case concerning my indefinite block from Turkish Wikipedia under the account name Umtcnyd. I was accused of being a sockpuppet of the user "Sarı Saçlı" and blocked indefinitely from the CheckUser request about Quzubaba, a request where I wasn't even initially mentioned at all. Despite an extensive contribution history (about 2,000 edits and years of consistent, high-quality contributions, especially to political polling articles), no behavioral evidence of malicious intent, coordinated activity, or policy violations has been presented publicly. My block was based solely on private CheckUser data.

This indefinite block has effectively eliminated my ability to participate in Turkish Wikipedia community, where I had established myself as a committed contributor to the political polling content for the Turkish elections —if not the biggest one according to XTools, before the block— and editorial upkeep. It not only restricts my participation in collaborative knowledge-building but also undermines the core UCoC principles of inclusivity, fairness and community accountability by imposing an absolutely non-transparent sanction that ignores behavioral context and editorial merit.

The CheckUsers and administrators involved (Vincent Vega, Elmacenderesi, and Anerka) did not provide detailed public justification. I sent a detailed personal appeal via email to Anerka, outlining technical counterpoints, my contribution history, and the lack of behavioral evidence and even possibly fishing—this message was acknowledged but yielded no result. The full message can be provided in it's original Turkish version, if requested.

Multiple community members— including long-term users such as Reichberg, Narsilien, Users1001, Yaldıran, and St. Doggo— have voiced strong opposition to the decision, citing the lack of transparency and apparent overreach. Users1001 even challenged the CheckUsers’ technical methodology, explaining that due to CGNAT and high user-agent overlap (e.g., Windows 10 + Chrome), multiple users in the same area can appear identical.

On my user talk page, one of the admins (Dr. Coal) stated that Turkish Wikipedia has no more appeal routes, emphasizing that processes here are not bound by legal standards such as the burden of proof or transparency of evidence, further highlighting the opaque nature of the block.

The situation escalated to the point where I filed an appeal to the Ombuds Commission. Their response (dated 6 April 2025) stated that “no violations of the Privacy, CheckUser, Oversight, or Access to Nonpublic Data policies occurred,” thereby closing the case as outside their jurisdiction. However, this does not resolve the broader injustice of the block, nor does it address possible systemic abuse of power.

This case represents a potential violation of multiple elements of the Universal Code of Conduct, specifically:

Section 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence, by functionaries using their position to impose indefinite punishment without public evidence or a meaningful right of reply;
Section 3.1 – Harassment and hounding, particularly due to the prolonged lack of transparency, the imbalance in process, and an appeal process that was functionally unjustifiable despite my ability to defend myself and provide counter-evidence.

Additionally, it remains unclear whether CheckUser access in this case complied with Wikimedia's Privacy and CheckUser policies. No behavioral evidence preceded the CheckUser request, and it appears that the tool's usage on me was invoked solely on the basis of technical overlap (e.g., IP coincidence, user-agent similarity). According to Wikimedia policy, CheckUser should only be used with a valid behavioral rationale and not for casual technical comparisons or "fishing" expeditions. This raises serious concerns about unauthorized or unjustified access to private data, further compounded by the lack of procedural transparency.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Umtcnyd)

1. Turkish Wikipedia local appeal efforts were made, including multiple talk page discussions, and even a secondary CheckUser review. However, no actionable path or transparent review process was available to meaningfully contest the block once it was enforced.

2. A personal, in-depth email appeal was sent to the admin Anerka with counterpoints and a request for an indepedent re-review after Elma Cenderesi's secondary CheckUser review.

3. An appeal was sent to the Ombuds Commission on Meta-Wiki on 17 February 2025.

4. The Ombuds Commission responded on 6 April 2025, declining to proceed on the grounds of jurisdiction, stating no violation of policies within their purview occurred.

5. Multiple users (Reichberg, Narsilien, Users1001, Yaldıran, St. Doggo) voiced support and questioned the legitimacy of the block, with Users1001 offering a public technical rebuttal.

Vincent Vega

Previous attempts at a solution - Vincent Vega

Elmacenderesi

Previous attempts at a solution - Elmacenderesi

Anerka

Previous attempts at a solution - Anerka

Dr. Coal

Previous attempts at a solution - Dr. Coal

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 (Pppery)

Requests for comment/Unfair block and failed appeal on Turkish Wikipedia was recently filed, covering similar ground but from a different blockee. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (95.5.190.50)

The Wikipedia of Turkish language has an ongoing extreme aggressiveness on socks for, 2-3 years? Editors there drop like flies, for the lack of a better word(s). All new editors undergo extreme scrutiny and any similar behaviour they exhibit to the socks can end up with them landing on the Dİ (Sockpuppet Investigations equivalent). Even if the result is inconclusive, it puts a lot of stress on new editors and usually ends up with them scurrying away to never return. As can be seen here, even a “possible” result can end up in multiple admins getting pinged to banish the user. Any kind of objection falls on deaf ears, as can be seem in Umtcnyd’s talkpage on Turkish Wikipedia. 3 users opposed to the block, one of which was an established user. Technical data is regarded as information which cannot be wrong in any way, as Umtcnyd and RuzDD (Here’s his RFC BTW per the linking policy which has further info regarding his case.) shows. I am replying from an IP as I have vanished because of an injustice which has happened to me because of this aggressiveness. If the U4C wants I can share links showcasing further details. Sorry if this is too long. --95.5.190.50 17:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part is, two of the users that opposed to my block got blocked afterwards due to "allegedly" being socks. No investigation was done, and those wall of texts on my talk page were simply called as a "set-up", implying that those users weren't there in good faith. (1 [tell me, why would it take more than a month to ban a sockpuppet or two?]) (2) (3)

Thinking about adding these in detail to this U4C case soon. Absolute authoritarian madness on admins' part. Umtcnyd (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Modern primat)

good, it is nice to see people may see flaws of tr wiki CU system. im indefinelty blocked(twice! actually) in both 2022 april and 2024 january. 2022 block is fair, ok. but that 2024 block is totally injustified and hurting my will to contribute wikimedia projects. tr wiki is my home wiki and despite multiple callings and explanations through in secret or public nobody even listened me. im just a troll, huh? after this time my only wish is to nobody get hurt by this corrupt system. i believe our CUs or admins are not bad guys, but our policies are. if you gonna block people; we need strong evidence, not "possible" with just from one eye. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 23:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you when it comes to CU’s (they are people elected with a higher standard and it shows). Admins, however… that’s a bit more controversial for me. Some admins have small flaws and I think that might be a contributing factor to the “editors dropping like flies” statement the IP above me said. 38.172.49.90 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (St. Doggo)

"Multiple community members— including long-term users such as Reichberg, Narsilien, Users1001, Yaldıran, and St. Doggo— have voiced strong opposition to the decision..." I would like to add that Yaldıran and Users1001 were blocked on "sockpuppetry" and "disrupting Wikipedia" grounds after they opposed the blocking decision on Umtcnyd's talk page. This happened after the case was created, so Umtcnyd did not mention it in the description of the problem. St. Doggo (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would get reversed too if they opened a U4C, might be too late though. time will tell whether umtcnyd gets rightfully unblocked after this decision or they will be stubborn to unblock. in the event they get unblocked I know some people that will use this as a Damocles sword38.172.49.90 09:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, they probably need to open a new U4C for themselves. They are blocked because both of them periodically contribute on the same article and both of them opposed Umtcnyd's block. Nothing else. There is no additional reason for Users1001 and Yaldıran's block other than this. My point is that I don't think Umtcnyd's block wasn't just a "good faith mistake". I think there is a pattern of wrongful decisions on Turkish Wikipedia. St. Doggo (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correkt, we need to open a broader R4C sometime along the road 95.5.189.166 15:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@St. Doggo and IP. Thank you for your suggestion. Even if my account is unbanned, I don't want to contribute to the Turkish Wikipedia until this system is changed. Therefore, I don't plan to file a U4C case for now. Turkish Wikipedia checkusers and some Turkish Wikipedia sysops don't even clearly explain the reasons for their ban decisions(because if they give a proper explanation about the bans, they will be proven wrong). Some ban decisions are completely wrong. There is no effective way to appeal their decisions. The case we are writing these comments about is one of the clearest examples of this. So, there is nothing preventing them from abusing their power. And some of their banning decisions certainly are (e.g. the banning of my TrWiki account).

For example, today they can unban my TrWiki account and tomorrow they can ban it again indefinitely completely without any reason. And if they do so, there is no one who can hold them accountable for doing so. Even U4C members have said that they have no authority over Turkish Wikipedia checkuser decisions.

One day in the future, there may be someone who wants to fight against these power abusing cu's and sysops and systematic unjust bans in Turkish Wikipedia. Maybe in the future someone will be able to gather together these unfair/unjust bans. For this reason, I have written the details of the unjust banning of my Turkish Wikipedia account on my meta Wiki talk page. I won't do anything else for now. Yaldıran (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Yaldıran)

I would like to say this to the members of the UCoC: If you see this case only as Umtcnyd's banning case, you will probably face the Turkish Wikipedia's cases of appealing checkuser decisions in the future. Active Turkish checkusers say that they “almost never look for behavioral evidence, just make decisions based on IP and user-agent technical data”. Because of things like the IPv4 shortage that Turkey has and the fact that CGNAT is very common in Turkey, Turkish checkusers systematically make wrong decisions. IP addresses, user-agent datas are considered personal data. They say that they make their decisions based on IP addresses, they don't disclose any details about their decisions due to privacy reasons. They don't look for behavioral evidence, thus avoiding accountability. Furthermore, there is no appeal mechanism against checkusers decisions in Turkish Wikipedia.

They have no obligation to explain their decisions. There is no way to appeal their decisions. It's a huge uncontrolled power.

It seems to me that the UCoC members didn't notice the discussion about the ban on Umtcnyd's talk page. I apologize to the UCoC members if I am wrong and if they have read it.

I kindly ask the members of the UCoC to consider this requests.

1- The opinions of the UCoC members were made public for the first time on June 10th. For the following reasons, I request that the pending closure period be extended to one month. July 10.

1.1- The defendant checkusers 1, 2 aren't very active. I suggest that we make sure that defendant checkusers see what the UCoC members have said and make sure that they write the last things they have to write. So far they have written almost nothing on the case page.

1.2- This case didn't proceed publicly like other UCoC cases. No one knows what UCoC members asked the Turkish checkusers and no one knows what the checkusers answered except UCoC members. Perhaps if the checkusers had written public answers, other users might have had questions for the checkusers. Or there might be information they might want to share.

2- In order for the proceedings to be transparent, I request that the questions asked by the UCoC members to the defendant Turkish checkusers and the answers of the Turkish checkusers be published by hiding personal datas. I am NOT demanding the publication of anyone's IP address, user-agent informations, etc. I am just curious about the questions and answers. I think it is possible to publish the questions and answers by hiding personal data such as IP, user-agent etc.

2.1- I believe that the Turkish Wikipedia community has a right to know the questions asked by UCoC to Turkish checkusers and the answers of Turkish checkusers. Turkish Wikipedians who will vote in future Turkish checkusers elections should have the right to know the activities of the Turkish checkusers.

I wrote the details on the discussion page because of the max. 500 words rule. Please see

Yaldıran (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the more detailed explanation of the incident here and on the discussion page linked at the end (which I strongly agree with!), I want to ping the @U4C members and strongly encourage everyone to read this feedback of Yaldıran's and as well as the one above (St. Doggo’s). With this context, maybe it’s worth reconsidering the whole case and/or adjusting the motion for a broader and more justified resolution.

@Ajraddatz @Barkeep49 @Civvì @Dbeef @Ghilt @Ibrahim.ID @Jrogers (WMF) @Luke081515 @Superpes15 Umtcnyd (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Umtcnyd and @Yaldıran: I will say I have read the conversation on Umtcnyd's talk (multiple times) and definitely asked questions about it privately. I am limited in what I can state publicly but the response I got did suggest more nuance than the comments suggest. I can also state that one CU acknowledged the letter we sent to them, which included the comments which were pasted below, ahead of it being publicly revealed so they are definitely aware.

That said, while I continue to think "there is not enough evidence currently available to support the block" I don't think the added details change our determination (at least for me) that the block is outside our scope. And at least from the behavior so far presented, this would be true even if the Checkusers are wrong a lot. That simply isn't, as I read it, a violation of the UCoC. If they were instead threatening or blocking those who disagree with them, that could be a UCoC violation but I haven't seen evidence of that. So it will be up to the Turkish Community to police use of CU that isn't abusive (this was not abusive) and decide what to do locally. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Turkish Community can really regulate the use of CU amongst themselves. I feel like people just somewhat fear the admins and thus treat CU results as absolute truth. So a lot of people end up siding with the admins. There is also no ArbCom and because of this U4C is going to get ringed a lot in the future, as admins see a lot of things as black and white. In my opinion, this case needs to get broadened in scope as this is a long ongoing issue. Fishing is completely valid for example, despite the local policies. Which is why Umtcnyd, the RuzDD example above got banned. IP's are often connected with user accounts, which the enwiki CU's advised against in a crosswiki CU check. I could go on.38.172.49.90 16:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violating Checkuser Policy from a privacy perspective (matching IP addresses to users) is an issue for the Ombuds Commission. In private discussion another U4C member brought up the idea of persistently failing to assume good faith as a UCoC violation. This is an interesting idea I had not considered. But I think that would need to be laid out in a new case showing the pattern, rather than just examining the single case of Umtcnyd which is what we were asked to do here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since quzubaba got mentioned, here is his off-wiki comment about his ban (it’s in Turkish) 176.89.78.154 11:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Elmacenderesi & Vincent Vega: can you please share with the U4C via email u4clistswikimediaorg the evidence you used to confirm this user as a sock. I will also be leaving messages on your trwiki user pages. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the proceeding on this matter, @Barkeep49. You might want to change the case's status from being on hold to active.

On a side note, I would like to correct Vincent Vega's response to your message on trwiki which mentioned that "the case was created after 90 days from the check". That is false. While right now it may be over 90 days because the CU request that led to my block was opened on Jan 20th, with it being concluded on Jan 24th; this U4C case was created on Apr 8th, about 79 days after my block and the CU check. He might be confusing the dates of this case being created and it being accepted. I don't think this is an important detail, but I felt like I needed to mention this part. Thanks, Umtcnyd (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Would it be a problem if I learned the substance of the case? What provision of the UCoC that gives the Board jurisdiction is suspected to have been violated? If you request, I need to learn about this issue in order to make my comment. Thanks. Vincent Vega ^msg? 12:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent Vega see my comments below where I examine that very question. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Barkeep49 I saw yesterday, in fact I saw whole case yesterday. Anyway I am looking forward to your questions, I will be pleased to answer. Vincent Vega ^msg? 16:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent those questions via email because of the private information that is involved. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for others that the U4C received answers to the questions yesterday and are discussing/considering. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 ~~Since ~3 weeks have passed, may I ask how the discussions/considerations are going?~~ (Upon checking your user talk page, I have seen an IP asking the same question, and since I assume your answer haven't changed in this timeframe, I'm only keeping my case status changing request.)

Also, I think I might need to repeat my request I typed above for the case status to change from on hold to active, since you got the information you asked from Ombudsman (which was the primary reason for the case status to be set as "on hold" as Luke081515 said at the Updates section). We are also past the date of 2025-06-01, which is mentioned at the top of this page :p Umtcnyd (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The update from the IP is I've written something. So things are moving along. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

The Ombuds have now shared information with us. The question on my mind is whether a project with exactly 2 CUs satisfies the Enforcement Guidelines requirement that "An action taken by an individual advanced rights holder will be appealable to a local or shared enforcement structure other than the U4C". If the answer is yes I don't think the UCoC has jurisdiction here. If the answer is no I have some questions for the trwiki CUs. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I threw out the question on the English Discord server someone responded with "a structure large enough to be able to form a consensus" as the correct answer to what size is needed to satisfy that requirement. I want to give it some more thought, but like that definition a fair amount at first thought. If that definition were to be used it would suggest this appeal is eligible for appeal to us. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After consideration I am going to proceed with this definition of an enforcement structure. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

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

✅ Passed Motion— Date: 2025-06-10

The U4C has considered this case and decided that we do not have jurisdiction because the block was not for any kind of UCoC violation. We have privately recommended to the Turkish Checkusers that they re-consider the appeal based on all technical and behavioral evidence. However, the final decision in this case will be with the Turkish Wikpedia Community.

Support

While the motion asks for the Turkish Checkusers to re-consider the appeal, I will go a bit farther as an individual and suggest that there is not enough evidence currently available to support the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the evidence doesn't necessarily support a block, but I also don't think that there was intentional abuse of advanced access here, so I think this approach is correct. Sometimes CUs and admins will make good faith mistakes, and it isn't our job to fix all of those if a UCOC violation (or the credible possibility of one) is not involved. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the block should be lifted because of the weak albeit existent evidence we have, but this is not our decision to make. --Ghilt (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an enwiki CU my impression after looking at the data was that the technical evidence does not support a block. I hope the Turkish Wikipedia CUs will reconsider the appeal based on this motion. Dbeef (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the motion, it seems a very reasonable approach. --Civvì (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trust my CU-experiences colleagues; as they came to the conclusion that they recommend that the block should be lifted, I'd also recommend that. But at the end not our decision to make. Luke 081515 20:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support, I think it's better to contact Turkish Checkusers first so they might reconsider. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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.

Acknowledging that this request has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that we are behind our schedule on this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting for additional information on the view of the ombuds commission. This may take time. --Ghilt (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Set the case to on hold until we got the infos from the ombuds commission. On behalf of the U4C, Luke 081515 08:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We got the infos, the case is now under review, and we will publish our result in the near future. On behalf of the U4C, Luke 081515 21:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case is closed with the motion above.--BRP^ever 15:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]