Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Administrator rights abuse on Greek 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
Nervren (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Filer
ThecentreCZ (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1], local notification
Εὐθυμένης (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[2], local notification
Kalogeropoulos (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[3] local notification

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 Nervren (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nervren

Description of the problem - (Nervren)

There are two RfCs open about this issue (1,2), but I was advised to follow a UCoC procedure. We don't have global sysops or stewards. Briefly:

First case is sysop Kalogeropoulos blocked user ThecentreCZ because he complained about the deletion of his article by Εὐθυμένης.

Second case is sysop Εὐθυμένης blocked me because I tried to explain my single-phrase objection on an offensive article's talk page.

In both cases we've been treated with revert-block-ignore (as for vandalism), and the false accusation of sockpuppetry.
Our edits were completely removed without warning, no checkuser requested (of course), and we were blocked indefinitely with no capability to appeal or even communicate (blocked user talk page, no UTRS available).

There is no record of me or ThecentreCZ trying to blame the admins on anything else than not following the rules, and no record of offensive language. Apologies from my part, for not breaking any rules, have been given in every oportunity while the sysop keep igoring even in the RfCs.

I will only post the timeline of events. Hopefully this is the place for the two admins to explain themselves for the first time.

Case 1 - Blocking of user ThecentreCZ by user Kalogeropoulos

07:33, 15 June 2024 Εὐθυμένης deletes work by ThecentreCZ
22:29, 15 June 2024 ThecentreCZ requests restore (ignored)

20:21, 5 July 2024 ThecentreCZ posts administrator recall petition for Εὐθυμένης
10:40, 6 July 2024 Kalogeropoulos fully blocks ThecentreCZ indefinitely for sockpuppetry
10:42, 6 July 2024 Kalogeropoulos reverts petition

Sysop claimed that ThecentreCZ used some "pattern of attack against another admin". This is irrelevant to sockpuppetry but lets consider it.

"Good day, how dare you remove my article." and "You didn't even request for improvement. Restore my article now!" accompanied by an apology, as response to the slap-you-in-the-face delete and ignore, can be considered more of a defense than an attack.

Also "product of automatic translation" as stated, despite editor's argument that it's not automatic, is not even a valid criterion for speedy deletion, especially for an article under development by it's creator.

So that makes a false reason for the delete plus a false reason for the block.

Case 2 - Blocking of user Nervren by user Εὐθυμένης

05:41, 18 Oct 2024 CubicStar reverts comment by Nervren 1 2 3 4 (no edit summary)
20:10, 18 Oct 2024 Nervren reports QubicStar for 3RR
07:07, 1 Nov 2024 MARKELLOS continues reverting 5 6 7 8
08:36, 2 Nov 2024 Nervren reports MARKELLOS for false accusations and made-up rules

11:51, 6 Nov 2024 Nervren posts comment quoting Wikipedia Policy
12:05, 6 Nov 2024 Popular Punk reverts it (on Admininstrator's Noticeboard)

09:08, 12 Nov 2024 I post my first comment on content dispute*
12:13, 12 Nov 2024 users Greek Rebel and PopularPunk revert it
12:21, 12 Nov 2024 Εὐθυμένης blocks Nervren indefinitely for sockpuppetry

*I refused to discuss the content of the article inside the Noticeboard, insisting on my right to do it in the article's talk page. After I realized there wasn't a chance for this, I posted my fist comment about the content.

There are more parties here but they are secondary to the blockers whose intention is not clearly, or not at all, expressed yet. Also these parties' interventions are not that constructive so far in my opinion. I think it's useful to let the main participants respond first.

CubicStar participated only one time, to support Popular Punk's revert (see above)

MARKELLOS participated only to support CubicStar's reverts with some strange rules

and Popular Punk is apparently here only for the fun. Nothing of what he writes makes sense, and he writes in bulk

It looks like the two sysops have nothing on ThecentreCZ or me so they chose to block us for sockpuppetry, because they don't like editors questioning the authority of admins. Or because of some other personal reason of theirs that they don't want to share.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Nervren)

Case 1:
22:29, 15 June 2024 ThecentreCZ contacts Εὐθυμένης on his talk page (ignored)
20:21, 5 July 2024 ThecentreCZ starts petition for administrator recall (blocked,reverted)
07:37, 13 Aug 2024 ThecentreCZ opens RfC on Meta Wiki (user talk page unblocked)
19:53, 9 Sept 2024 ThecentreCZ opens a request for unblock (unanswered)
Case 2:
06:42, 18 Οct 2024 Nervren starts discussion on article's talk page (reverted)
20:10, 18 Oct 2024 Nervren posts first report on Administrators' Noticeboard (poor participation, no consensus)
08:36, 2 Nov 2024 Nervren posts second report on Administrators' Noticeboard (blocked)
09:43, 14 Nov 2024 Nervren mentions Εὐθυμένης in RfC on Meta Wiki (ignored)

ThecentreCZ

Hello, thank you for detailed description of the case. All my points I explained at my RfC are up-to-date. I am now waiting more than 6 months with no reaction or reply to my unblock appeal (Wikipedia:Appealing a block) I started in September 2024 (ThecentreCZ#Αίτηση). My previous messages to various Greek Wikipedia administrators connected to this got no response to this day after waiting period of about 8 months. I would describe this as not just problem of this administrator, who is using repressive blocking for no reason, but also as problem of major non-inclusiveness of sysop team at this language version of Wikipedia, as there is also no current Wikimedia ambassador mentioned at Wikimedia Embassy for this Wiki as almost only one major-language Wikipedia. On other languages Wikipedias I am familiar with, certainly this would not be possible, as its in contradiction with openess of Wikimedia community. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, however, you sadly didn't adress the main issue in my case, that is my indefinite blocking in the Greek Wikipedia falsely imposed on me for multiple account use, which I never used, and for which I request the unblock.

The issue you are adressing here is your evaluation of the intial article changes dispute. This would be perfect summary for the discussion in the Administrators noticeboard#petition for administrator recall, where you could have perfectly explain it. The behavior I evaluate as a disruption of the Code of Conduct is the deletion of the petition without archiving it by the other administrator. Petitions should be always archived, even when they are not accepted for resolving at all.

I am active Wikipedian, who contributed to more than 95+ various language Wikipedias (count). Do you really expect that I can differenciate between some formal and informal adresses variatons in all the languages including Greek language? The intial article was not autotranslated, it was orginally written by me with the help of dictionary and phrase translate help. Article contained encyclopedic style, references and categorization and all the essentials needed, there were maybe some grammar mistakes. If someone creates such article in my home Wikipedia, we add there notification template that such article will be deleted if author won't correct the mistakes and then we eventually help the contributor to correct the grammar of the article. When I consider Wikipedia:Assume good faith, are you really claiming that as a Wikipedia Administrator you intentionally ignore messages to you, because of mistakes in some formal form of the autotranslation of the message? U4C member Barkeep49 here also used automatic translation to Greek language using Deepl, would you ignore his message as well? Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2025 (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 (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

I am OK with no CU in these cases. You can often block socks without technical evidence. I would like to know what the multiple accounts are and the evidence used to block. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepl translate to Greek/Deepl translate στα Ελληνικά

Είμαι εντάξει με το να μην υπάρχει CU σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις. Συχνά μπορείτε να μπλοκάρετε τις κάλτσες χωρίς τεχνικές αποδείξεις. Θα ήθελα να μάθω ποιοι είναι οι πολλαπλοί λογαριασμοί και τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία που χρησιμοποιούνται για τον αποκλεισμό. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Εὐθυμένης and Kalogeropoulos Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, regarding the first case (user ThecentreCZ) the article in question was deleted as being auto-translated, something that can be further proved by the message I received (evidently auto-translated as well, a person with enough knowledge of Greek can easily assess that, especially with the switch between formal and informal form of dress, or "tu" vs. "vous" in French language) later on by the same user as a form of protest against the deletion. In general, due to the tone of the message in the previous diff, I prefer not to reply to such messages because I have seen it and experienced it first hand in my more than a decade as an active Wikipedia contributor that it encourages the continuous use of such a tone as something normal and acceptable, which is certainly not. Afterwards, I don't remember whether I forwarded the diff in question to the Admins Notice Board or not, but in some cases, if I feel that some limits have been bypassed or reached, yes, I will ask other admins as a simple user. Then, of course, it's entirely up to them to decide if it's nothing big or if it's not acceptable. As a reaction (?) the user in question, then proceeded by starting an admin recall petition. The tone of the text in this proposal, I personally feel, was only a continuation of the tone of the message that was posted in my discussion page (posted earlier in my comment). Again, searching to avoid any confrontation I don't know what could have been really done here, and whether the admin recall petition was some form of "retaliation" (?) for deleting their article as an automatic translation. Now, regarding the block that followed I don't think I can give a proper answer as I wasn't really involved with that.

Regarding the second case (Nervren) there are not much things to be said, as it seems to be quite a more simple case. The user in question showed too many common patterns with at least one blocked locally after community vote user, that the duck test alone as an indicator was more than enough. It has to be said, also, that the tone and rhetoric was quite characteristic of his that it would have been quite difficult for another, unrelated person, to use it or have a similar one. Not really common, if not at all.

At your disposal for further clarification or explanations if needed, 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the evidence is that you are "really sure". And you don't bother naming "the socks" because it's definitely them right? Looks pretty clear. Nervren (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Εὐθυμένης: and @Kalogeropoulos:, is there evidence for blocking ThecentreCZ with the "multiple account reason"? I am also wondering why their unblock request was left unanswered for all this time and if this is an exceptional case or it happens habitually that unblock requests are not dealt with (but that is a question for the whole admin group of elwiki). --Civvì (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Civvì: As I personally wasn't the one blocking the user in question, I guess I'm not really the best suited person to answer that part of the question. 😕🤷‍♂️ On the contrary, I was one of the two implicated parties, so that means in practice - obviously - that a block from my side would have been a major "big no no". Now, regarding the unblock request part, obviously, I cannot answer for other admins over at el@wiki. However, I can say that since el@wiki has a significantly lower traffic/activity than en@wiki, so it can't necessarily be expected to work the same way as the latter's doing. Also, there are some sort of "twilight zones" definitely, with some admins choosing to take their time before answering a request on the notice board if not at all, or waiting for another admin to take the initiative. In any case, I don't want to start a discussion about active / inactive admins, as this would have been a completely totally different discussion, for a different thread perhaps. But, definitely there's an issue that needs to be addressed at some point. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: Thanks for your review, however, is it really right way to decline whole case before any statement or reply by main involved sysop Kalogeropoulos? Also I refuse to be associated as any side with other parties, I stand for myself and all my activity doesn't intent to solve original content disputes. What exactly you mean by that I didn't comported well for result of such penalty? How did I violated policies and guidelines in any way that it is correct and justified for penalty of indefinite block, imposed by the specific sysop? Do you really see that intentional ignore, inactivity, covering up tickets by not archiving them for the public is in accordance with UCoC? Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I am in favor of some kind of motion to resolve this. According to the Enforcement Guidelines these users deserve to have their appeals considered. However, Greek Wikipedia is large enough for different admins than the two who blocked to consider those appeals. So the U4C doesn't need to hear these appeals (accept) but not do I think we need to decline the case (non-disruptive appeals should be responded to). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepl translate to Greek/Deepl translate στα Ελληνικά

Είμαι υπέρ κάποιας πρότασης για την επίλυση του θέματος. Σύμφωνα με τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές επιβολής, οι εν λόγω χρήστες δικαιούνται να εξεταστούν οι προσφυγές τους. Ωστόσο, η Ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια είναι αρκετά μεγάλη για να εξετάσουν τις ενστάσεις αυτές διαφορετικοί διαχειριστές από τους δύο που μπλόκαραν. Άρα το U4C δεν χρειάζεται να ακούσει αυτές τις προσφυγές (accept) αλλά δεν νομίζω ότι πρέπει να απορρίψουμε την υπόθεση (οι μη διαταραγμένες προσφυγές πρέπει να απαντηθούν). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

I would like to look into the possibility of having el.wp appeals decided by someone from el.wp who hasn't been involved yet. The mechanism already exists locally and should be followed through, especially when the duck test is involved, because tends to produce false-positive results. --Ghilt (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline votes

Reviewing the evidence presented, this looks like a couple of content disputes during which neither side comported themselves well. I don't see evidence of abuse of sysop rights here, nor of a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC. Decline. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

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

Action: Nervren may submit an unblock request that will be placed on their talk page for consideration by an administrator other than Εὐθυμένης and Kalogeropoulos
Action: the unblock request by ThecentreCZ is dealt with by an administrator other than Εὐθυμένης and Kalogeropoulos
Recommendation: we recommend a way to make unblock requests better visible to the admin group so that the requests can be looked at in a reasonable timespan

Greek (automatic) translation:

Δράση: Nervren μπορεί να υποβάλει αίτημα ξεμπλοκαρίσματος το οποίο θα τοποθετηθεί στη σελίδα συζήτησης του για να εξεταστεί από διαχειριστή εκτός της Εὐθυμένης και του Καλογερόπουλου.
Δράση: το αίτημα ξεμπλοκαρίσματος του TheCentreCZ εξετάζεται από διαχειριστή διαφορετικό από τους Εὐθυμένης και Καλογερόπουλο
Σύσταση: προτείνουμε έναν τρόπο για να γίνουν οι αιτήσεις ξεμπλοκαρίσματος καλύτερα ορατές στην ομάδα διαχειριστών, ώστε οι αιτήσεις να εξετάζονται σε εύλογο χρονικό διάστημα.

Support

Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Civvì (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghilt (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– Ajraddatz (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luke 081515 21:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

...

Neutral

...

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 has been seen by the U4C. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the parties has privately shared some reasons they won't be able to respond. --Civvì (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]