When the controversy of Ergun Caner began to die down, the events that took place were documented and added to his already existing Wikipedia page. Clearly, when a prominent individual such as Ergun has a big controversy, his public biography ought to be updated in accordance to what took place, right?
Ergun did not want people to see this information, so on 16th December 2010 he decided to do a mischievous thing and “blank” the page. What does “blanking the page” mean? It means, he literally selected everything on the page and pressed the DELETE button! This meant that all the information and links to the news articles, to this website and other prominent sources that explained his fraudulence were removed.
As you can see from the images above, Ergun first revamped the page to make it say what he wanted it to say and after realising that Wikipedia was not allowing him to do so; he decided to just BLANK the entire page. One may ask, why it says that he deleted the information four times (06:28, 06:29, 06:31 and 06:32). This is because Wikipedia saw his page blanking as vandalism and kept automatically reverting it back to its original state. They told him the following:
“The recent edit you made to Ergun Caner has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. “
“If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.”
So you see – Ergun made a childish attempt to manipulate a page that he knew people would encounter when researching him (it comes up as number 2 in Google when you search his name), but it backfired on him.
I was told by some "senior members" of Wikipedia that I am not a reputable individual and thus, for me to post information that refers back to my “anti-Caner” site, would not be permissible. They did not like that I tried to bring attention to the letter Ergun sent to his University and neither did they like that I wanted to explain how he deleted that 25th February statement. . They also said that Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg are both reputable individuals and using their sources as references (which they did) are perfectly acceptable. This was of course, a complete joke, because we all know that good old Johnny and Normy are buddies with Ergun! I won’t go into too much detail, but they later agreed that fakeexmuslims.com can be included as an external link (at the bottom) on the Wiki page. This also begs the question, how can references to YouTube clips of Ergun himself not be reliable sources?! And I don't mean my videos that "expose" him, I am referring to simple clips of him saying "Ramadan is a 40 day month" and "I was born in Istanbul, Turkey"....
You can see what they said to me, and I to them, here.
The Wikipedia page even in its current state is missing enormous amounts of relative information and focuses on some points that I personally would not consider as very important.
Overall, we have learnt that Ergun Caner slyly made an effort to conceal sources of information from those people who look him up on Wikipedia; which would probably be most people when they search his name in Google. How low can you go, Ergun?