Requests for comment/Cencorship in Turkish Wikipedia: Apertheid caused by biasedness and ignorance

The following request for comments is closed. After more than 2.5 years since the initiation, I think it's fair to say that no new opinions will arrive. This request has not received support, and therefore I'm closing it. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages in Turkish viki are considered as a space of power struggle and of political propaganda, by the members who are responsible for protecting our wiki idealsEdit

The issue is general, which is valid for all Turkish members with some authorization, to erase, to edit or to ban. So, you should revise their personal situations as a whole. The authorized active members in Turkish viki are few in number, and they aim to maintain this situation, so, to stay as an elite ruling Turkish viki.

The charged users of Turkish viki, who gained eligibility over other users and content, systematically apply cencorship, opression and harrassment over the regular users and contributed contents from regular users. They systemically impede corrections and editing approaches, especially for protecting articles which they constructed for propaganda purposes. However, obstraction and cencorship are general rules, to protect their power-positions, to protect their biased policy and to conceal their unfaithfulness against wiki criterias. Also, they systematically hinder the opening of new pages. So, there is a serious barrier, against newcomers for collecting points and gaining access for eligibilities.

The opression is unbearable especially in case of the pages about the ciritical-Islamist philosophers and writers. However, in general, this negative attribute is against all Turkish academicians and university members. Turkish viki seems declared a war against Turkish universities and scientists.

The abuse of authority and abuse of delegation rights, among Turkish users-in-charge or gate-keepers, are hard to be explained. However, international stewarts and wiki bureaucrats can assess the situtation very clearly, if they examine two recent examples which I give below.

First, the case about Prof.Dr Celalettin Vatandas. Vatandas is a sociologist and the writer of twelve books about the early-history of Islam, the historical problems of Muslim communities, post-colonial studies, and problems caused by modernity processes in eastern nations.Also, he has books about multi-culturalism and late-modernity problems in all nations of the world. All of the books are still in circulation and publication reports say, these are good sellers in their own category. His massive study about the world-cognition of Turkish youth ( The youth in Turkey) gives way to national-wide argumentations in Turkey. His books are in Turkish, but he has also articles in English. Moreover, he is the first council in very credible official foundation of Republic in Turkey, Ataturk Highest Institution of Culture,Language and History, called AYK in abbreviation. He is the vice-president of Gumushane University and the dean of the faculty of Communication Sciences there.

I wrote an article about him including all points above,(the ones proper for viki), gave bibliography and sources in proper format, even I added links of internet news from credible sites about his populer studies. But the members of abusement, our viki "elites", erased the page, with the code of M6. They said, the professor is not worth of being in wikipedia. I tried to tell the truth in discussion page, also I sent messages to all the active users in charge. But instead of concerning the article in a proper way, they voted for it quickly in their narrow community, and erased it without reading or considering my last corrections. Everything was happened in period less than 36 hours. Not five days. Now, they erased even my polite objections to defense the value of the article. This is basically, the clearing of the proofs about their guilty-crime against wiki criterias.

Second case is the Şafak Yayla. Yayal was a member of DHKP-C, an absolutely terrorist organization, which is in terror list of US, UK, EU and Turkey. Yayla was an "armed" activist, and the murderer of the public prosecuter who was first hostaged by Yayla, with armed thread. Criminal reports said that the primer cause killed the prosecuter were the bullets from the pistol of Yayla and his partner in the action.

Do you think that such an activist, who was a member of a terrorist organization, was a terrorist? If not, who can be called as terrorist on earth? Do you say Baghdadi was not terrorist but president of his self-declared state? But our Turkish elite members doesnt allow to call Yayla as terrorist. In fact, I didnt attempt to call him terrorist, bu only objected to call him, as "proleteriat revolutionist" and "activist". In case of it, I edited the article with saying that, DHKP-C is an internationally and officially recognized terrorist organization and Yayla was the member of it, still without calling him directly as terrorist. Within my statements, I gave a link to DHKP-C vikipedia article, which declares the organization's official terrorist situation -an old article, wrote before these self-evident elites-. However, they erased my corrections. And clearly I explained the reasons and benefits of my attempt, both in community dashboard of the case and in explanations of my writings.

Still the article, nor erased neither corrected. They struggled to keep it in the way they made. They erased all the points I collected from my contributions. And they attacked, with the accusation of not abiding the wiki rules. However, clearly I abide the rules, but they dont. The ones who are expected to protect, abuses and violating wiki criterias, to gain power, and to use this power.

Please make a judgement, and save us from these people.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okurogluselo (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)