Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Administrator rights abuse on Greek Wikipedia

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ () Nervren (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

---

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 1234 (no edit summary)
20:10, 18 Oct 2024 Nervren reports QubicStar for 3RR
07:07, 1 Nov 2024 MARKELLOS continues reverting 5678
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)

Suggested solutions - (Nervren)

Just unblock. I think there is no reason for the blocks.
I suppose my comment on the talk page should be restored, but I'm not interested to discuss it anymore. So just leave it censored. I only want to be verified if I have the right to post it or not.
Probably ThecentreCZ would like to ensure his right to post his article. You can post your suggestion below.

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)

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

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)

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)

• Ping Εὐθυμένης and Kalogeropoulos Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

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.

• Acknowledging that this has been seen by the U4C. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)