Talk:Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on Greek Wikipedia

• Bring back actually. Translate precisely pls because there has been another proposal against your behaviour--Kalogeropoulos 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• You understand that since you want to use my words against me you are ultimately obliged to translate them correctly. There has been another proposal from admin for your infinite ban (actually ladysthofAu, PVasiliadis and Adolaptsand according to this part of wikipedia policy and the proposal of one user for Lady6thodAu permanent ban. So I'm sorry but it is bring back, or recall if you like, or reinstate, make your choise.--Kalogeropoulos 13:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So, your suggestion is to use the word "back" twice? It currently reads: "I bring back the proposal ...... from the Greek community back on the table." ?--Hieronymus 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Try "I return the Greek proposal to the table of discussion." RTG 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just as well. All I am saying was that the correction made by Lady6thofAu at 13:18, 29 October 2008 was to the point and that the allegation regarding an intentional distortion of the signified is completely unfounded. It is the current version which misconveys the signified--probably merely the product of an overzealous oversight.--Hieronymus 14:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No I argue that it was not on the table. It has been allready done. We were not dicussing anything. Previous admin had banned them permanently, according to existent policy. Later on another admin has decided that it was a quite heavy and the rest of us agreed. So I did not bring something back to table. I simply reinstated the proposal. I think that this one is crystal clear--Kalogeropoulos 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a question of what you did, but of what your original text says you did. It says you 'were resubmitting a proposal' or, in effect 'putting a proposal back on the table'. This is a perfectly justifiable English translation. If you have already banned the users, like the previous admin did, you should not have spoken of a proposal or suggestion. Additionally, your original objection was not regarding the expression "on the table", but the use of the word "back" or lack thereof, which you added, as if having perceived that it was not in the text. Your comments above indicate, that your original perception of the translation was that it was attempting to hide the fact that the participation of the users in question in Wikipedia has been under question before. I merely pointed out that the translation was not doing that.--Hieronymus 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to my opinion translation was not exact. Is that crystal clear to you? The rest you are reffering is your point of view my friend and I will not comment on it--Kalogeropoulos 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel this way. I am in for objective, not subjective discussions.--Hieronymus 15:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to your opinion is this objective discussion or interpetation of my opinion? Your comments above indicate, that your original perception of the translation was that it was attempting to hide the fact that the participation of the users in question in Wikipedia has been under question before. --Kalogeropoulos 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also mark here the expression counter-quid-pro-quo-attack used by user Lady6thofAu for further analysis in due time--Kalogeropoulos 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are you threatening Lady6thofAu with this? --Pvasiliadis 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you fooling mr Vasiliadis my intention to analyse further the whole situation or you are trying to make me stop talking?--Kalogeropoulos 16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to go into the rules of textual critical analysis or translation of the signified, as this the place for neither discussion. Your corrections, as well as your respective explanations are open for all to see. In my opinion, you misinterpreted the translation, attempted to correct it by introducing a redundancy, realised your error and then tried to cover it up by changing your original claim against the translation. When that did not work, you resorted to reducing the matter to a difference of subjective opinions. Now you are just asking me to interpret a cursory summary of my previous premise, which could not be further from the question in hand, which in turn will lead to another red herring. The original translation was fine. The translation as it stands is also all right. And all of the above is a perfect example of the kind of "logic" one has to work around in order to get anywhere in Greek wiki under the current circumstances. --Hieronymus 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hieronymus is precise in his observation and Lady6thofAu exact in her translation. "To bring back to the table" or just "to bring back" have both the same meaning as they refer to a proposal and not to a decision. The mentioned ban itself is part of the alleged sysop misbehaviour as described by the user Lady 6thofAu. --Pvasiliadis 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And ofcourse the next I was talking about as "rest of the company", came forth to talk about the real problem, that these users are trying actually to change policy on admin elections. Thats why when I left my self to community none of these users has given a vote for my ban. They are not interested on me, their intentions are deeper, expressed here by mr Vsileios. I considered that unbelievable, when I heard it on IRC from exactly the same users, that are presenting themselves here, but now I'm obliged to believe it. Their real intention is creating sysops puppets--Kalogeropoulos 16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason none of us voted on the matter was because we were banned at the time. Only Vasiliadis commented in time following your invitation to comment, after which another administrator interdicted the rest of us from commenting. This effectively invalidates your above argument. In addition to that, the bureaucrats' refusal to desysop you after your own request is just another example of the administrative chaos that predominates Greek Wikipedia. As to your theory regarding puppetry, this can be debated elsewhere. This is not why I am here. I am here to debate desysopping yourself alone and will not engage myself in any other sort of discussion until this is resolved. --Hieronymus 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As Hieronymus points above, the discussion doesn't concern any ban. It has to do with your desysopping. I expect you to take part in the main discussion and tell us your thoughts about what is written there, rather than engaging in an endless unrelated conversation in the talk page.--Lady 6thofAu 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. You are exposing yourselves very well ladies and gentelemen. You are not in need of my assistance. Keep on the good work, and emphatically no there was enough time to express your selves, even vote. You didn't there, what changed now? Should I suppose a counter-quid-pro-quo-attack because of Lady's ban or only you know the answer? I suspect we'll have answers in due time.

@Lady 6thofAu What conversation? Do you mean fooling accusation, since the way you are presenting items with many irrelevant links simply insults me my lady. Not to mention the insulting offence, that all sysop community is manipulated by me. --Kalogeropoulos 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A clarification...

... on Kalogeropoulos' comment on the main page:

You brought this matter to existence here. It was not me who banned you Hieronymous 
but four consecutive syssops. Thank god my comments are there to 
disprove your allegations about mocking you. You consider your self 
free toy say anything you like and consider others obliged in silence?-

I comment on this here, as it has limited application to the case examined and purely to the extent that Kalogeropoulos is inclined to bend the truth to justify his actions.
My current ban was administered by sysop el:user:Badseed allegedly based on the misconception that I used the expression "fundamendalist babbler" to describe another user. The expression was used while a warning was given to the sysops that their sustained refusal to defend Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality and particularly regarding Undue Weight [1] from potential dangers seriously harms article quality. The initial ban had a 3 month duration. When I attempted to explain my true intentions to Badseed's talk page, my ban was extended by sysop el:user:Diu to 6 months.

Therefore, Kalogeropoulos' comment regarding my having been banned by four consecutive sysops could not be further from the truth and aims at the creation of impressions and the ad hominem defamation of my case against his retaining his sysop status, which in itself poses serious questions about his intent as a sysop and the means he employs to achieve it.

At this juncture, I would like to note that until this particular event, my attitude as a user/contributor had been exemplary, with only one other ban having ever been received prior to this: a one-day ban in 2005, when I was a Wiki-neophyte, and hence unaware of the edit-revert rule.
Suffice is to say, that I followed all the legitimate processes to have my ban reconsidered by the sysops, not only explaining my case with civility, but also promising to be even more careful and considerate of my expressions in the future. The first time, the sysop responding to the case I made against the ban completely changed the substantiation of the original ban (he essentially wrote that I had been banned for a different reason than what the original ban reason stated that I was banned for). When I objected to that, opening a new case, Kalogeropoulos responded by mocking at my argumentation, instead of making any serious attempt to respond to it. As far as I am aware, the case is still open on my talk page, as no other administrator has made an official note as to what the result of the reconsideration of the ban was, is or has been or any attempt to seriously respond to any of the arguments I have raised, either the former or this latter time. --Hieronymus 01:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Translating Greek to English

Hi, I just happened to read a little of this. It does not concern me but out of pure interest I attempted translation of the supposed "faggotries" quote on live.com and Babelfish. Microsoft don't even do Greek and Babelfish didn't show "faggotries" but it was inconclusive because the translation did not make clear sense and some long words were omitted translating into long Latin script words which looked like gibberish. Could anyone suggest a reliable Greek to English translator online? Also, for any person who becomes aggressive when debating articles I have started a small essay on Simple English Wikipedia. It will be familiar to any native English speakers. I think that all wikipedian editors should be familiar with an essay like this because if you think that Wikipedia is important, it is easy to lose your temper about how pages are written but it is not nessecary, and rarely in your favour. ~ R.T.G 16:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You can try this one [2] but do not expect exact translation, not only because the machine isn't perfect, but the users use greek expressions that aren't available in dictionaries. It is the best I found using the texts in this page.--Konsnos 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Still complicated but thank you ~ R.T.G 00:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Words used modified a little in expressions

the π word (translation) as defined by Manolis Triantafyllidis, equivalent turkish + -λίκι = π...+ ρ(ι) + λίκι (i feel weird implying it in greek :S)

κατίνα (translation) as defined by Manolis Triantafyllidis

κουτσομπολιό

απωθημένα (def. B) as defined by Manolis Triantafyllidis

Sorry, currently I don't have much time, I hope that these help :) --Lady 6thofAu 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous request for translation

In a previous version of the page, an anonymous contributor asked me to translate the following comments that I had made in the Greek Wikipedia. I strongly feel that it is not my actions that should be under discussion here, and that such attempts only serve to divert attention from the matter at hand. However, since my comments do bear upon to Kalogeropoulos behaviour, I will provide a translation here.

To provide context to the comments, they are part of a discussion of Kalogeropoulos erratic handling of a copyright problem. If memory serves, it was about an article on the myAegean on-line community (I could be wrong though, because it's been over a year since then and Kalogeropoulos and I have disagreed on copyright issues more than once). I had at that time tagged an article as violating copyright law because it had been copied verbatim from the community website, and Kalogeropoulos had immediately removed the tag without explanation. In the exchange that followed, I suggested that Kalogeropoulos should know better than tolerate such plagiarism. To this he replied that he had done nothing wrong, that the text was allegedly released under a Creative Commons license and that he would not tolerate me accusing him of malpractice, which at the time I interpreted as a threat that he would take action against me. The comments which follow were a reply to the accusation that was allegedly insulting him, and read:

You [Kalogeropoulos] are just playing with words, and not successfully I think. Your tolerance [for infringing articles] is established by the facts that (a) you have been aware of the [copyright] problem since 23.43 of 26 April [when I flagged the article] if not earlier; (b) due to your experience you were aware of the importance and the possible legal repercussions [of copyright infringement]; (c) the wiki architecture gave you the ability to correct the problem; (d) you did not do that; and (e) at 00.00 of 28 April you deleted the copyright tag that I had placed. All the above could even be construed as collusion to cover-up the illegal act, so please do not act surprised when I point out that you were merely being tolerant.

Incidentally, the article was pulled down after the administrators of the myAegean community confirmed that the text could not be used for derivative works such as a Wikipedia article which anyone could edit, and therefore that its inclusion in the Greek Wikipedia was indeed a violation of copyright law. Marcus 09:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You admit then, that you made some legal threats and wiki lawyering on el.wiki. I' tried to protect you but it's ok -:)--Kalogeropoulos 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how enforcement of copyrighted content is protection of someone, who was obviously trying to prevent copyright violation on el.wiki and protect it from any possible legal consequences that such an enforcement might had.

Also, I would ask you to respect all opinions since the page is not semi-protected. If you think there are any problems with those anonymous users or if you suspect any kind of rules violation, please notify an admin here instead of deleting comments made by other people. Keep in mind that this is not your debate (I noticed your words on the main page), but a discussion that you also take part in (since it's about your desysoping and is about el.wiki).--Lady 6thofAu 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse...nothing else was expected as an answer. Actually this user was accusing mr Lawyer here of legal threats he made on this page the context of which mr Lawyer has tried hard to manipulate. Legal threats are there, in bold, in this translation provided by him. Legal threatening -for any reason- as libellous texts, are not favored on wikipedia's policy and should strictly be avoided. Is this clear?. Furthermore I should mention that mr Lawyer is steadily using an anonymous IP, besides the fact that he has an account. Why so?. And yes sock puppets are quite annoying in any kind of community. Casual users seem to be very casual in this page --Kalogeropoulos 04:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if you called users by their nicknames, instead of anything else. I have no idea for the reason he is not using an account, I guess he forgot his password (now that you raised that, I've noticed he doesn't have an email - maybe you could find some way to communicate and help him?). As far as I see there is neither threatening nor libel in his comments (you seem to imagine libel everywhere). If you think certain users are sock-puppets please report them, because indeed sock-puppets would be annoying and unproductive in such a serious conversation. Removing comments yourself though is a bad idea, it shows no respect. --Lady 6thofAu 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It better than adding names to anonymous IPs, that means...your practice--Kalogeropoulos 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in coming back to you. I hope you took advantage of my absence to study WP:WL because your previous comments suggest a poor understanding of what Wikilawyering is. Wikilawyering involves the inappropriate use of legal terms, or legal technicalities to defeat the spirit of Wikipedia. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia to reproduce copyright-protected material, and all I did was raise the point that it is also against Greek Law. If you feel that by doing so I threatened you, that is probably a reflection of your own insecurity rather than any intention to harm you. In the interest of clarity, let me re-iterate what I have already told you personally: my comments were only meant to educate and sensitise you to the legal ramifications involved in the reproduction of copyright-protected content. That said, I stand by my argument that your poor decisions and your obstinate reluctance to correct them cause a legal liability to WP. 79.131.147.228 15:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)