Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on Greek Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following request for comments is closed. No substantive comments made in almost two years. The problem may or may not have been resolved (see "Community resolution" section at the bottom of this page). --A. B. (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I request to dessysop wikipedia:el:user:Kalogeropoulos (usually signs as ΗΠΣΤΓ or TheElder) for the following reasons:

  • He uses offensive language. He is usually ironic[1], sarcastic[2] and mocks users under ban:
A ban had been given to about 5 users for editing an article. During a public discussion taking place on the community forum, about a possible revert of the 3-month ban of each user and a 6-month ban of another he said:
"the faggotries of both sides"[3], referring to users taking part in a conversation, that had different opinions. About 4 of them had been banned. The use of the Greek equivalent of “faggotries” is extremely offensive. The use of such swearwords is deeply shocking, even if they are not aimed at someone in particular. No one would dare use such vocabulary in Wikipedia, publicly or otherwise. Yet he used it and the only reason he has apologized for it only after much pressure[4], after having been openly much criticized about it. He excluded some users from his apology (those that where targeted initially by what he said) and continued acting the same way.
During a discussion, it was pinpointed that an existing policy was not adequately covering a subject. He immediately made a direct attack to the person proposing a new one, using the following phrase: "You low-IQ gossiping git, you only come here because you need to escape the problems of your private life. If you want a new policy, go create your own wikipedia"[5]. It should be mentioned, that, just a week later, he was in need of a clear policy about the same subject. He attempted to compile the entire policy by himself, without giving a notice in the public forum or anywhere so that users could discuss about the proposal[6].
  • He stated about wikipedia “Wikipedia has acquired a new style as a place of gossips”[7][8].
  • He enforced original research[9] and also claimed that because of his personal job he was right in a debate. He asked a user to bring some evidence that in her personal life she wrote at least one paper, according to his words was "unqualified, but a single paper would be enough for me"[10][1](related)[11].[2]. It is not the first time he acts like this (compare:[12],[13]).
  • He lies about the reasons for banning users against all policy. When necessary he makes up reasons. He tends to force a user to revert 3 times and then, ignoring the policy, bans the user. In absence of repeated reverts, he uses conversation posts dating back several years. Sometimes he separates the message from a subject, so that the message reads like a reference to a person (and therefore an attack), instead of a reference to an article.
He banned a user who had left wikipedia for some months, on the grounds that 2-3 years ago(!)he had called him "happy-go-lucky”[14]. Later he explained that the actual cause for the ban was the overall behavior of that user.
Another user was disappointed by his actions and decided to leave wikipedia. The user stated that the admins acted upon their own decisions without respect to the policies, referring to a book by Orwell. Kalogeropoulos's response was: "what is your position Mr. Adolapts? That of the masked snitch with many identities and 18,000 accounts?"[15] and then he banned him.
  • He banned a user for making 3 reverts on her talk page, while the rule says that he should ban someone for 4 reverts (after making more than 3). The rule says that the maximum ban for that is 1 day and should generally be used to protect an article. Instead, he extended the ban to a week. He did not choose to protect the article. What he really meant to protect was his own comment in the user's talk page, which was a response to a comment about another, irrelevant user[16]. It seemed that he just meant to show that he could place his comment wherever he wanted. After a day he unbanned the user, stating that he didn't regret for the incident but he couldn't bear the noise.
  • He stated that in biographical articles, revealing the biographee's weaknesses in an article is an insult to the person, thus violating policies about neutrality.
  • In addition, he stated he lied about the reason giving a ban. He said:
'"The main reason for the ban isn't the breaking 3 reverts rule. I could claim that you were doing a personal attack if you like and then extend the ban". He extended the ban to one week.[20]

We should give a notice here, that there was no break of 3 reverts rule, the rule clearly states that there must be more than 3 reverts (i.e. 4 reverts) in order to break that rule.

  • He deleted a vandalized article, failing to check any previous contributions. It turned out that behind the vandalism there was a complete article, a user found out and wrote him a short notice asking him the reasons of deletion and a revert. Kalogeropoulos insulted the user in his response. When other users pointed out that his behavior was not appropriate, Kalogeropoulos did not make any further comments[21].
  • He has used his admin rights to delete his own talk page.

On account of the above (and numerous other examples), I am convinced he is not appropriate as an admin. He lacks knowledge of the policies and/or chooses to ignore them. His actions are often the result of rage against users and are detrimental to the project.

I am/we are confident that the above account will be received in good faith. Still, all of the above can be backed up with links from the Greek Wikipedia project, in case any Greek speakers/readers should like to verify the exactitude of the account. If no Greek speaker/reader is available, testimony by several users can be provided. --Lady 6thofAu 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse of rights, personal attacks, rights misuse etc. (translated)[edit]

Kalogeropoulos deleted and reverted his own page[edit]

00:18, 31 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "User talk:Kalogeropoulos" was deleted ‎ ( the content was: '==Thank you== Thank you Elder for your wishes and for remembering me! Dimitrissss 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) == e-mai...')

01:33, 26 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "User talk:Kalogeropoulos" was deleted ‎ (Γ7/ΣΧ2: Requested by its creator: the content was:) 02:45, 20 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "User talk:Kalogeropoulos" was deleted ‎ ( the content was: 'Why are we not compatible in license issues? I personally do not hold the same view on file transfer but will not insi...') 05:58, 13 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "User:Kalogeropoulos" was deleted ‎ (the content was: {| align="center" style="border: #99B3FF solid 1px;" width="100%" |- !style="background:lavender" align="center" |user:Kalogeropoulos|Η... (and the only contribution was by 'Kalogeropoulos'))

More trace deletion[edit]

00:18, 31 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "User:Kalogeropoulos" was deleted ‎ (the content was:
puppet master
(nd the only contribution as by 'Kalogeropoulos'))

Reversion when he needed it[edit]

00:55, 30 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) revert "User talk:Kalogeropoulos" ‎ (323 versions reverted)

00:53, 30 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) revert "User talk:Kalogeropoulos" ‎ (1 versions reverted)

Comments when editing, banning, etc.[edit]

18:18, 14 September 2008 (histor.) (diff.) Διαγωνισμός Παιδικού Τραγουδιού Eurovision 2008 ‎ [Eurovision Children’s Song Contest] (was it not enough that you shove the children into this porn industry, do you also want to have an article about it?)

19:56, 29 January 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (Removal of content from pages: what on earth)

16:18, 4 March 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (Removal of content from pages: get lost you jerk)

17:40, 17 February 2008 (histor.) (diff.) Ερρίκος Γ' της Αγγλίας ‎ [Eric III of England] (damned hamsters)

01:29, 2 November 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (at the match tomorrow)

22:12, 1 November 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "Cine club" was deleted ‎ (Α5: Unencyclopedic: the content was: a “team” of your colleagues, eh?)

15:34, 18 May 2008 (histor.) (diff.) Ελληνική μυθολογία ‎ [Greek Mythology] (Don’t just stick whatever) [22]

23:11, 24 February 2008 (histor.) (diff.) Talk:Χριστούγεννα ‎ (a Godzaman, you jerks?) (last)

23:33, 27 February 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (Εκφοβιστική συμπεριφορά/harassment: ela xamster Com'on hamster)

Failure to check history[edit]

21:46, 31 August 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) article "Κρίση πανικού" ‎ was reverted (6 versions were reverted)

A whole article was deleted as “try”[edit]

13:56, 21 September 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) Article "WrestleMania" was deleted ‎ (Γ2: Experimentations by user: the content was: Wrestlemania started in 1980 wihtin the well known Madison Square Garden Building. The main event featured the legendary Hul...)

Stressing a policy[edit]

01:29, 2 October 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) The article "Ηλίας Φλωράκης" was deleted ‎ (Α5: Not encyclopedic: the content was: based on the talk page and policy under discussion)

Bad faith as ban reason[edit]

23:43, 6 September 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (persistent edits by a particular known IP)

No notification that could have resolved bad faith issues[edit]

Kalogeropoulos constantly fails to notify users he gives a ban (especially newcomers):

14:11, 23 August 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) Ο Mxls10 (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 2 hours ‎ (Deliberate entry of wrong information) No machine translation please--ΗΠΣΤΓ 11:07, 23 Αυγούστου 2008 (UTC)

23:48, 27 February 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) Ο (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (Spam links to external websites)

13:50, 1 Ιουλίου 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) Ο (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (For their style and related comments) [23]


03:37, 29 June 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) removal of ban of user "Leelee (Talk | Contribution)" ‎ (explanations already given, sorry)

16:58, 26 June 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User Leelee (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 3 days ‎ (Content removal)

17:53, 3 Ιουνίου 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) Ο (Talk) was banned for 1 day ‎ (content removal)


02:21, 2 April 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User C.zacharakis (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 1 week ‎ (repeated entry of copyrighted material)

4 reverts that never happened[edit]

00:56, 11 May 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) Ο Michalakisnicolaou (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 1 day ‎ (Broke three revert rule)


04:22, 1 February 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User 3hierx (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 1 day ‎

01:07, 21 Απριλίου 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User Eroufilitsa (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 1 day ‎


17:16, 29 Μαρτίου 2008 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | Contribution) User Ωρείθυια (Talk | Contribution) was banned for 1 week ‎ (Broke three revert rule: Repeated Deliberate entry of wrong information)


I fully concur with the above proposal. Whereas the administrator in question has made a significant contribution in terms of his authoring work, in his interactions with other users, particularly those who disagree with him--either ideologically or otherwise--he conducts himself in an arrogant, dismissive and downright rude manner, in total contradiction to Wikipedia policies.
His mockeries at my attempts to hold a civilised and rational conversation regarding a ban which I considered unfair are still to be found on my talk page.
His selective tolerance of unacceptable behaviours, as well as the frequent stretching, adapting or downright violating Wikipedia policies to suit his arguments or rationalise decisions have been setting a pattern which unfortunately the rest of the administrators' team in the Greek wikipedia have been following.
I fear that unless immediate action is taken from a higher agency, it may soon be too late for the Greek Wikipedia attempt.--Hieronymus 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I was approached with the general outline of this problem, I considered Meta to be the most suited place for such a discussion - being separated from Greek Wikipedia which has seemingly become a scene of high-velocity action a discussion ought to be conducted in a more civilised manner, which I hope will be the case here.
I naturally cannot verify the accuracy of the accusations - not being able to use Greek or even recognise its alphabet. If, however, they are true, the administrator in question has violated not only the policies of "No original research" or seriously crossed his area of responsibility banning users for invalid reasons, but he has also violated the general rules of civil manner of interaction, especially in the world of Internet and wiki technology, where each edit is not only stored on the Wikimedia servers, but also propagated through any live mirrors that may scan the changes on Greek Wikipedia and copy them further for anyone to see.
I would be happy to get some insight from the Greek-speaking community members who aren't active Greek Wikipedians, in order to get as an objective standpoint on the accusations presented here as possible. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 09:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also agree with the above proposal. Though he has contributed in many ways to the Greek wikipedia, it has been a long time that el.wikipedia administrating process has been falling pray to his often arrogant, biased and offensive behaviour. As one of the older administrators, he tends to steer other administrators. Other sysops also imitate this egocentric administerial attitude with the above mentioned results. A recent example of this is here where Kalogeropoulos had sworn for one more time bluntly and another sysop just replaced the word with an euphemism.
  • I think that a period of time without the system operator identity would make him think over and re-evaluate his behaviour. This could also pose a stop for this kind of behaviour that has also become common among other sysops of the Greek wikipedia. --Pvasiliadis 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please find below a translation of this sysop’s reaction to the discussion opened here. As is evident, this is a continuation of the policy of shutting up those who speak against the violations against the spirit of Wikipedia. The op perceives certain users to be “against” him and therefore suggests their permanent ban, as a counter-quid-pro-quo-attack[29][30]. This text, both by its style and content demonstrates the kind of macho attitude that Greek Wikipedia users need to abide by on a day to day basis:

Lady 6thofAu

to me

show details 2:36 am (10 hours ago)

The following is of interest to you:

So, dear fellow wikipedians. This is the email that user Lady6thofAu sent to my email account twice, in order that I consolidate it, to point out that she requested my being dessysopped, assisted by, of course --and incited by, in my opinion -- users Pvasiliadis and Hieronymous. The rest of the company are expected. Read on then and enjoy the way in which three, the self-called "haunters"-she sent to a different email, inviting me to the "haunt", she missed me from there it would seem, can divide and muck up this community. Suffice is to say, of course, that in the course of events you will enjoy more of this amusing material, for from now on I consider myself free to publish anything that has come to my attention, so that you can clearly see the picture of bigotry and fury. I naturally assume that this concerns the rest of the administrators, who are depicted as addicted and subservient to my own behaviour, as well as a portion of the users of Wikipedia. It is surely a case worthy of study, which I shall closely follow, since, inter alia, they have the insolence to relegate me for allegedly accusing lady of proxying :)))))) We are being hilarious and I would like to apologise to administrator Ahristis. She was right. --The Elder 11:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of the Result

Regardless of the result of this spiteful and organised attack, I bring back the proposal for the permanent ban of users Vasiliadis and Lady6thofAu from the Greek community. I consider their presence divisive and detrimental to the community, since both, with user Vasiliadis most of all, have been responsible for edit wars and for serial ironic and derogatory behaviour toward other users. The recent co-existence between the community and the user Lady6thofAu demonstrated that she does not care about Wikipedia as an entity, but only as a means to convey her own ideas and to remonstrate regarding the alleged insults that were made toward her, or even to create frictions, in spite of several opposing views by other users, thus repeating past behaviours. Mr Vasiliadis’contributions to edit wars, furthermore is at least a hundred fold of his contributions in wiki-material. With this in mind, I consider their presence in Wikipedia abusive and ask for their full ban from the Community for three years. --The Elder 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

--Lady 6thofAu 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very sorry to take part in this sad discussion. Though the things mentioned above are true, when I complained about them, some weeks ago, to Jimbo Wales himself, I didn’t ask for any dessysoping neither did I mention any user name, but I expressed a thought for the change of the syssop election system in the Greek Wikipedia, so that syssops may be annually re-elected according to their annual behavior and contribution.

When Kalogeropoulos was informed of a proposed change in the policy as regards the election of the administrators, he stated that he will do everything that he can to prevent such a change, which would made adminitrators, according to his words, “stooges” of the other users. ("Δεν έχει αλλάξει καμία πολιτική για να συζητήσετε για να δικαιούστε να θέτετε τέτοια ζητήματα. Επί του θέματος δε θα σας επιτρέψω, όσο αυτό περνάει από το χέρι μου να δημιουργήστε καθεστώς διαχειριστών ανδρεικέλων, για να εξυπηρετηθούν οποιοιδήποτε σκοποί σας".)[31]. Thus, Kalogeropoulos deems it improper administrators to be dependent on the annual approval of the Community, because such a thing would “control” them. I believe this is the core of what we are discussing in this page.

So, what incites me to support the disyssoping of Kalogeropoulos is his general attitude against dialogue with simple Wikipedia users and his violent reaction to the creation of this page, namely, his threat in the forum of the Greek Wikipedia. Because when I see Kalogeropoulos to propose a 3-year ban to two users because they started this discussion here, I simply consider this a threat of ban to any other user who would dare to support the desyssoping of Kalogeropoulos.

The action of Kalogeropoulos is actually the application of what one other syssop, Diu, expressed few months ago, that criticizing a syssop may lead to a ban.

I consider this aggressive and totalitarian way of “handling matters” on the part of the administrators totally incompatible to the spirit of Wikipedia.

As you can see, the specific case has a general impact to the Greek Wikipedia. I am sure that the dessyssoping or not of Kalogeropoulos will affect very much the march of events in the Greek Wikipedia: it will affect the way “adminitrators’ authority is viewed in the Greek Wikipedia. For this reason I beg the administrators of Meta to pay attention to the problem. I understand that there is a barrier of language, but I believe that most, if not all, of the involved users, including Kalogeropoulos himself and the rest of the syssops, can speak English and explain their position.

Thank you for your patience and time to read this.

--Vasileios78 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I verify the above evidence that user wikipedia:el:user:Lady 6thofAu has shown, and agree that the attitude of user wikipedia:el:user:Kalogeropoulos is frequently offensive and abusive. In the forum of Greek Wikipedia, in the middle of an argue I have proposed moratorium between all users[32], and have been asked to remove any links from my user page [33] that are against wikipedia spirit. As stated above, user Kalogeropoulos was again using his admin rights to revert and lock articles and therefore did not contribute in maintaining peace between many users and himself.--Konsnos 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well as anybody can see on this first link you provide, you are using the faulse accusation that 10 sysops of Greek Wikipedia are part of a Cabal conspiracy and you say that this is partially true in el.wikipedia. When you receive your critique, you simply say that you react accordingly to the community with ironic behaviour, because this is that you are feeling that you get. Ofcourse you dont admit that you used your userpage for polemic against community, something that is not consider a good idea in wikipedia's policy. Your unproved allegation is here at the disposal of this and ofcourse of greek community.

Lets move to the second link you provide. You have been asked to remove «oh yeah, i forgot, the more posts you have the larger your penis is» from your user page and you consider this within Wikipedia spirit? Or Η Βικιπαίδεια είναι ακριβής[εκκρεμεί παραπομπή] (that means) Wikipedia is accurate[citation needed] is a kind of humourous connotation against Wikipedia's accuracy we all are trying to accomplish? --Kalogeropoulos 02:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you see that the problem is, because you think your opinion is right or even because it is sometimes right, you think you are in the position to be offensive or strech the policies to fit your actions. That is what we discuss here and by trying to present each user's actions as "wrong" by your terms, you simply don't justify your offensive style pointed above.--Lady 6thofAu 09:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry? you mean you are not offended by this declaration «oh yeah, i forgot, the more posts you have the larger your penis is»? If not, why you are accusing me for the same reason above? And I still am waiting your answer abour your false accusations in the bottom of the page. --Kalogeropoulos 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you request to dessysop him here? Make a request on greek Wikipedia, where greek wikipedians can take part in the discussion! They saw and see any comments he and you(!) made the last months. What do you fear? That the overwhelming majority of greek wikipedians won't agree with you? In my opinion you're right: they won't! --Popçular Dışarı 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek wikipedians can also take part in the discussion here, in addition it is a more neutral place, as said before. They are aware of this discussion, because it was mentioned in the forum there. So far wikipedians that speak greek, have verified my evidence about Kalogeropoulos's sayings, if you know greek you can probably make a translation and/or proofread them. I would provide a translation myself, but I prefer someone considered more objective to do so, perhaps someone out of the greek wikipedia community.
As you can see Kalogeropoulos ignores the discussion here (take a look at the talk page above), as an answer he prefers to threat everyone taking part in the Greek forum where he has power. He does so after he banned or threatened anyone that would take part here. His behavior spans over a long period of time and I feel I must discuss the issue here, especially after he turned down with his usual ironic manner the proposal of a neutral discussion on greek wikipedia. My intension was to start a discussion here long ago, but I wasn't able to do so due to lack of time. I hope that the future of the greek wikipedia will become better, because now the statistics show a constant drop in the rhyme of new articles' creation. We are stuck below 50.000 articles for years, while other wikipedias have grown much more during the same period.--Lady 6thofAu 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have to prove this accusation at the moment: As you can see Kalogeropoulos ignores the discussion here (take a look at the talk page above), as an answer he prefers to threat everyone taking part in the Greek forum where he has power --Kalogeropoulos 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popçular Dışarı, it is not a matter of fear. I cannot understand what makes you conclude about the "overwhelming majority". The reasons mentioned above and experience of years in Greek and other wikis make clear that there will be no chance of just and unbiased treatment of this situation at the Greek project under these cisrcumstances. Two of us that brought for discussion the matter here are since yesterday threatened with a 3-years ban proposal made by Kalogeropoulos [34] and even more users have been victimised during the previous years. Also, it is not a matter between two users, about what "comments he and you" (her) have made, but a matter of a lasting uncontrolable syssop aggravation to the violation of wikipedia's norms. --Pvasiliadis 06:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well you've also to prove the accusation of threatening. Except if you think that you can say everything that you want because you are on meta. My proposal is there, reflecting an analysis of your false accusations and your lies, which is going to be translated in favor of this wiki and ofcourse community will decide, on your allegations, or you care not for community's will?--Kalogeropoulos 07:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your proposal can only be interpreted as a response/reaction to the move to desysop you on the basis of the documented case above. On the Greek Wiki forum, you have attempted to interpret data that requires no interpretation, distorting them in order to palliate the gravity of the situation and make it look like a conspiracy against you. Whereas this is laudable as the only plausible line of defence you can take, regardless of the amount of lawyeristics used, nothing will change the fact that you have in the past used:

  1. Offensive speech
  2. Derogatory speech
  3. Disputable and subjective banning criteria.

Any Greek-speaker able to impartially comprehend the texts cited will and should attest to the above, regardless of the possible variations in the English renderings. --Hieronymus 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no need for an interpretation of Kalogeropoulos' proposal! He has the right to propose whatever he wants, like every user! The decision of the community (which is to be found on greek WP, not here) is another question. I am sorry, but like several other greek wikipedians I am partly not able and simply not ready to discuss the details of a question concerning the greek WP community on meta in another language! Neither me nor other members of the greek WP-community did join greek WP to solve questions concerning it in english! By the way, personally I prefer turkish. Hadi, görüsürüz inşallah yunanca vikipedi'da. --Popçular Dışarı 12:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popçular Dışarı, this is exactly the reason why we are not here to focus on Kalogeropoulos' proposal beyond any possible merit it may have in this discussion, which is about the request to desysop him. Such merit may only apply to his perceptions of Wikipedia policies and the relative application of those through his current status as sysop. If you are convinced that both the timing and the nature of his proposal are a mere coincidence and are completely unrelated to this discussion, please allow me to disagree, particularly when Kalogeropoulos himself expressly calls this discussion a "spiteful attack" [sic] and within the same text proceeds to request the permanent ban of the user initiating this discussion. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that his proposal will not be resolved here.
Now, as respects the language we all prefer, I am sure we all think of our mother tongue as of the language of our hearts. Still, we need follow certain conventions in order to communicate, hence let us kindly use English as our lingua franca for now, shall we?--Hieronymus 12:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no answers. More accusations by Hieronymus this time. Ok. I 'll have to ask official translation and we see if you manage to find even one word threatening. You know you can'not and of course I should not wait any other practice that this one you are repeatedly exercising in greek wikpedia in mbs your dogmatic disputes --Kalogeropoulos 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An ad baculum[35] does not need to be explicitly verbal. Additionally, may I remind you that this is not a discussion about anyone's dogmatic disputes but about your ability to maintain balance, respect, sangfroid and civility while exercising your duties as an administrator, and your egregious and sustained failure to do so. This is not an additional accusation, as you seem to make it sound. This is a re-iteration of the above arguments. I find this interlocution counterproductive, but, and therefore, please do not make this an issue about others.--Hieronymus 14:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No you have to prove that I threat somebody in Agora where I made my proposal. If you fail to prove it, I consider your allegations, Lady's allegations and mr Pvasiliadis allegations here quite misleading. --Kalogeropoulos 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally cannot prove anything in the Greek Wikipedia Agora/Forum for another three months. Nevertheless, the way I understand it, your proposal there is whether Lady6thofAu and pvasiliadis should be permanently banned. Whether it is a threat or not, your motion, both in its timing and by its targets speaks loads of your ideas regarding the governance of Wikipedia and right of expression therein, particularly when taking into consideration the liberties you yourself have taken, as documented above. And the bottom line is that you are not accused here of threatening users--at least not solely of that.--Hieronymus 15:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here. You are accusing me here. Here you must also prove it. I'm not talking about Agora. But as I see you have not actual case. Mere speculations --Kalogeropoulos 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question. What do you mean biased? Do you mean that I'm acting in favor of some dogma in your long theological disputes that are tearing our community apart? Pls explain this accusation--Kalogeropoulos 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not certain you are addressing me with either question, as I used neither terms ("threat" or "biased"). Perhaps those who did use them are more qualified to reply. I am also not certain whom you are referring to when you say "your long theological disputes", as I am pretty certain that neither Lady6thofau, nor Konsnos, nor I have theologised on Wikipedia in any way. However, from my point of view as a "bracketed" observer of those discussions, your prerogative of sysop intervention (timing, measures taken, neutrality, civility, placing of blame) during those discussions has always been biased. This is evident both by the POV quality of the end-result articles in question, as well as the subsequent treatment of the dissenting parties on behalf of the admin team, yourself no less, as is evident by your current motion in the Agora/Forum. And, yes, if it were me that you were suggesting to ban, immediately after I had initiated a legitimate request to remove your sysop status, particularly after everything which has been said by admins to interdict this, I would also consider this motion a threat, even if the linguistics behind it were not threatening in the least bit. --Hieronymus 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what was this last ban of yours for political reasons. Ofcourse not. It was for dogmatic reasons as anyone can see in Greek Wikipedia--Kalogeropoulos 16:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My ban is not the reason why this discussion is made, so please stop throwing red herrings. When I asked you to review my ban on my talk page you mocked me in the most undignified manner (after changing the reason why the ban was given for yet a third or fourth time - I have lost count by now). This is no way to interact with users, particularly ones who may need an example to follow, and certainly no way to defend Wikipedia policies and ideals or administrating such a space.--Hieronymus 16:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally cannot prove anything in the Greek Wikipedia Agora/Forum for another three months. 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?--Kalogeropoulos 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Methinks there no reason for me to stay here more. Only to analyse Lady's false accusation about original research and I'll go back the piscture is clear and the rest is silence--Kalogeropoulos 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the interest of providing additional background to Kalogeropoulos' behaviour, I would like to describe my own experiences of working in the Greek Wikipedia. In July, I noticed that part of this article on the Hellenic Open University had been copy-pasted from the University website by Kalogeropoulos, and flagged the article. My edit was immediately reverted by Kalogeropoulos, who then made some minor changes in wording. When I remarked that this did not resolve copyright issues, Kalogeropoulos banned me for a day 'because of [my] attitude'. I protested about the issue in the appropriate venue of the Greek Wikipedia, where Kalogeropoulos proceeded to berate me as a troll ("αγαπητό μου τρολ") and a liar ("είσαι και ολίγον ψευτάκος"), while falsely claiming that the text he copied was not covered by Greek copyright law (I am a lawyer and I know it is).

In a different incident, Kalogeropoulos ordered me to "go play elsewhere" ("άντε παίξε αλλού") because there were too many 'traffic wardens in Wikipedia', after we disagreed on a point of semantics. In the same incident he claimed that he needn't provide citations for his contributions because he's an expert in the field ("Σου διαβεβαιώνω πως είναι γιατί αυτή είναι η δουλειά μου και μου λες πηγή": I assure you it is so, because this is my job and you ask for sources[?]). Elsewhere, he reverted my edits to an article arguing that I have no right to "decide what [he] will write" ("δεν θα αποφασίσεις εσύ τι θα πω εγώ"), as if Wikipedia is his own personal project.

In addition to the above, Kalogeropoulos has repeatedly abused his authority to violate the 3-revert rule with impunity, has been inconsistent in the application of copyright policy, and has been systematically abusive towards myself and other members. The number of incidents is too numerous to list here, and it would be too cumbersome to present them in Greek with translation and context. His admin status and popularity among Greek wikipedians appears to have given him the impression that he is above the community guidelines, as evidenced inter alia by his sarcastic exhortation that I should bring my grievances to Jimbo ("Να παραπονεθείς για αυτό στο αφεντικό (...) άντε γειά τώρα νομομαθή": Go complain to the boss...bye now legal know-it-all).

I am fairly sure that Kalogeropoulos will try to dismiss all the above as manifestations of a conspiracy against him, as is his habit. I am even willing to entertain the notion that this is the truth as he subjectively perceives it. But despite everything he claims, I have presented facts supported by objective verifiable evidence. Ultimately, the question before you is: if Wikipedia wants to be seen as a knowledge-building community of reasonable adults, can we afford an admin who is provenly abusive and shows signs of paranoia in his dealings with other users? --Marcus 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lady6thofAu's false allegations about promoting original research analysis[edit]

More or less user Lady6thofAu is accusing user Kalogeropoulos for promoting original research a serious accusation I think, using two misleading links since she couldn't find any other available. In this first link is mentioned by me. Αφού σε ενδιαφέρει το είδος της βιογραφίας, τότε θα έπρεπε να σε ενδιαφέρουν και τα σαρδάμ καθώς είναι μέρος της βιογραφίας. Νομίζω ότι κατέστησα σαφές πως δε με ενδιαφέρουν αγαπητή. Το τι θα έπρεπε κατά την άποψή σας δεν μπορεί να με ενδιαφέρει. Η ιστοριογραφία και συνεπώς η βιογραφία είναι τμήματα της επιστημονικής και ενίοτε επαγγελματικής μου ενασχόλησης. Μα αν είναι δυνατόν να στηρίξω την επιστημονική και επαγγελματική μου ενασχόληση σε σκανδαλοθηρικά δημοσιεύματα ή τύπου πολιτικές αναλύσεις σαν και αυτές που προτείνετε. Έλεος !!!!

User:Lady6thofAu is telling me marked with italics that: Since you are interested in biography genre you should be interested about spoonerism, as it's part of the biography. In other words User:Lady6thofAu was trying to convince me that mocking a person's defficiency (what she calls satyric) is part of an encyclopaedic biography. Of course she fails to prove this allegation, not knowing I believe that mocking human defficiencies is not satyric, is simply ill will. Besides this, I allready had explained to User:Lady6thofAu that OTRS had received threatens for law action on behalf of political personalities who declared that there was ironic, sarcastic or mocking content into their pages or pages' talk. I personally asked her to respect this, to protect wikipedia and remove this kind of content from her userpage on first place. Later, many users, 7 in number asked from User:Lady6thofAu to remove or change the same insulting content from Konstantinos Simitis former prime minister page. She denied any kind of change, with blind reverts [36] [37] [38] [39].

The next link User:Lady6thofAu is providing is translated as follows.

In a very cool disposition I'm telling you madame that simply your point of view is quite unproved. And moreover I'm asking you not to bother about my point of view, but only on article's dispute, because as it conserns biography, you are not in position to have a proved point. Simple as that, except if you are the writer of a biography or anything else... since you are not interested in my occupation. An of course -a friendly advice- don't try to pink me as you have done with user:Mmsoft.[2] Text in greek follows

Μπα πολύ πολύ ψυχρά σας λέω κυρία μου ότι απλά η άποψή σας είναι εντελώς αδόκιμη. Επίσης, αυτό που σας λέω είναι να μην ασχολείστε με τις δικές μου απόψεις παρά μόνον επί του θέματος, γιατί σε ό,τι αφορά στη βιογραφία πολύ απλά δεν μπορείτε να έχετε δόκιμη άποψη. Απλά πράγματα, εκτός και αν έχετε συγγράψει καμία βιογραφία, θα μου έκανε ακόμα και αν είχατε απλώς συγγράψει οτιδήποτε...μια και δεν σας ενδιαφέρει η ενασχόλησή μου. Και βέβαια -φιλική συμβουλή- μην κάνετε το σφάλμα να με ειρωνευτείτε στυλ Mmsoft --The Elder 22:07, 25 Οκτωβρίου 2008 (UTC)

An the second text (following some comments on my user page): I'm not interested madame in any kind of appreciation you have or you have not for me personally. Why are you failing to understand it? You can't say unproved things, this is what you have to understand. If you don't want to understand it's OK. Don't bother me anymore, don't waste my time. From now on we talk only in talk pages[1]. And the greek text:

Δεν με ενδιαφέρει κυρία μου η οποιαδήποτε εκτίμηση έχετε ή δεν έχετε για το άτομο μου. Γιατί δεν το καταλαβαίνετε; Δεν μπορείτε να λέτε αδόκιμα πράγματα, αυτό πρέπει να καταλάβετε. Δε θέλετε με γεια σας με χαρά σας. Μη με απασχολείτε άλλο, μη μου τρώτε το χρόνο μου. Στις σελίδες συζήτησης των άρθρων μόνο

Now, how these above mentioned texts are connected to any kind of false accusations about promoting original research, you are going to tell me members of the ArbCom or anyone else following this conversation--Kalogeropoulos 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your behaviour is - I think - completely unacceptable. You don't understand supplementary role of the sysops; this isn't puppet mastering or abusing the power. Some citations are terryfying. You should lost your rights right now. Szwedzki 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It must be stressed that it is not the violation of the policy regarding original research which I find most alarming, but
  1. his abusive enforcement of his personal subjective opinion,
  2. his threatening style as an admin in the form of ironically friendly advice,
  3. the reply with an attack using his profession to disqualify others from editing and citing sources and
  4. the abuse of his sysop rights as a content enforcer
that unfortunately have occurred more than once in articles.
In this particular case, the comments regarding spoonerism were in line with citations and political analyses originating with almost two score of independent mainstream sources, including articles from the principal Greek newspapers and television programmes. When such a plethora of factual material exists, it cannot be omitted from a biography, particularly when there is a hinted effect on the subject’s political life (subject is a politician).
Kalogeropoulos, when faced with the above material that did not present him with a flattering picture of the former prime minister, decided to ignore the policies and embarked on an ironic wiser-than-thou commentary, which summarily expressed that by virtue of his profession he knew better what was to be included in a biography. Ignoring the ongoing discussion with other users he extracted his own result and immediately deleted most part of the cited facts. He started making reverts and the text came in a form saying that all the sources against the prime minister were written by his opponents. I asked for a citation on that part and he came with two "opponent" newspapers so as to prove that sentence. The newspapers didn't contain any reference to the statement that "all the text against the prime minister were written by his opponents" but he said that it was enough that the two newspapers he had brought were actually written by "opponents".
Abusing his rights he locked the article to his newly created version enforcing the original research he had conducted above, rather than leaving the one at the point of the discussion and banned me for "disruptive behaviour against the community and edit war". This is just another one on a long list of bans he administered based on his personal feelings, most of which used to be reverted by admins who now abstain from contributing.--Lady 6thofAu 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be pointed out that the translations provided by Kalogeropoulos for his own quotations are not only selective, but also inaccurate and misleading. To name just one example: in the context of an academic discussion, the Greek word "δόκιμος" means "authoritative" rather than "proven" (Link to dictionary). So, a more accurate rendition of his comments quoted above would be: "...your views are entirely unfounded (αδόκιμη). [...] quite simply, when it comes to biography you are not entitled to an authoritative view". Which makes one wonder whether one really needs to submit a CV to Kalogeropoulos before editing an article in the Greek Wikipedia... --Marcus 14:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Dear Kalogeropoulos,

I feel that I must point out to whoever is reading this page that:

  • User Kalogeropoulos offered himself to the disposition of the users of Βικιπαίδεια [40]
  • Users have voted on the proposal of User Kalogeropoulos, in his favour [41]

It is obvious that some users cannot accept the truth and feel that they must continue this campaign against you. However, you also have to understand that in some cases it is impossible to discuss with reason.

You are accused of enforcing original research when the only thing you did was acting upon the consensus that was formed in the discussion of an article. A consensus of seven users was and is still being ignored here. A previous discussion on the same issue has been ignored. A previous discussion on another political person's biography which had also resulted in a consensus was also ignored.

I fully understand that you felt compelled to react to the accusations presented here, being either without logic, either misrepresentations of the truth, or omitting crucial data as you have clearly indicated.

However, I am asking you to stop all communication in meta, which is not the right place. This is an issue of the active Βικιπαίδεια users who have the right and the possibility to write on their language in Βικιπαίδεια. This is an issue of the active Βικιπαίδεια users who have the right and the possibility to ignore and not to take part in discussions in which they do not want to take part.

Thank you for your attention,
--FocalPoint 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this comment FocalPoint. Although I am not sure why a personal communication would be placed here, it did provide me with a broader understanding of the context. I was unaware that there had been a vote of confidence on Kalogeropoulos as an admin, or that he enjoyed the support of the community, expressed in the form of three (!) votes in total. At any rate, you do make a valid point in suggesting that these issue has only been discussed by the "active" users of the Greek Wikipedia. This however means that the vote of confidence, such as it is, does not reflect the views of the unspecified number of users who have quit in disgust of Kalogeropoulos' behaviour or because of his intimidation. It also does not reflect the views of several users who have raised concerns about Kalogeropoulos behaviour (an instance), but did not vote for whatever reason. It is, I think, evident that Kalogeropoulos is a controversial user, to say the very least. This in and of itself makes him a poor candidate for admin status, and that is why I call for his additional duties to be revoked.
I am sure that whoever can read English from the Βικιπαίδεια community will take into account your opinion. It is interesting to note your interpretation of the 3 votes in favour of Kalogeropoulos. As you may or may not have noticed, there was no votes whatsoever against him.--FocalPoint 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, could you please verify that the quotations I have placed above ("liar", "troll", "go play elsewhere") are true translations of what Kalogeropoulos has said in violation of the Assume Good Faith policy? Marcus 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see your personal good faith, in asking me to confirm the truthfulness of a translation since you seem to be fluent in Greek.--FocalPoint 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not my good faith that is under discussion here, and you have not answered my question. I will take your reluctance to verify my translations as a a tacit agreement that Kalogeropoulos' comments have indeed been abusive. Thank you for that, and also for your comments about my language skills. Marcus 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I also feel obliged to leave a note here, so that no false impressions will be left. This is a campaign against Kalogeropoulos and everyone who ever argued with these users. Most of these users have created long-term disruption in greek wikipedia, and have invited anyone who has ever had an argue with Kalogeropoulos to accuse him of anything even if it's not dealing with his sysophood. Almost everything contained in the above accusations is false, incoherent, misrepresented, or at least only part of the truth, and most of them have already been discussed in the greek wikipedia. I guess the only reason for requesting an RfC in meta instead of filing a dessysoping proposal in greek wikipedia is that the community there could easily recognize and point the misrepresentations of the above complaints. There is no reason to discuss this libel here. And to clear only one accusation, the banning of some of these users (mainly Pvasiliadis) had come in thought of the community since August after a great amount of disruption, and it is not a new proposal from Kalogeropoulos but a call for reconsideration of this possibility which was not proposed by him.[42] --Geraki TL 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geraki, I am afraid that your sense of loyalty towards the Greek Wikipedia community is clouding your judgement. Surely you are aware that comments like This is a campaign against Kalogeropoulos and everyone who ever argued with these users. Most of these users (...) have invited anyone who has ever had an argue with Kalogeropoulos to accuse him of anything even if it's not dealing with his sysophood constitute slander. In common with every conspiracy theorist, you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your defamatory remarks. And perhaps it's best that you don't try to back up your wild accusations now, because this is not the appropriate venue to discuss such unfounded hearsay. In the interest of moving this discussion towards a more productive direction, could you please point out which of the allegations about Kalogeropoulos' behaviour are at least 'part of the truth'?
And since we are discussing the attitude of the community towards Kalogeropoulos, am I correct in remembering that he was recently banned for a day after calling another user "a spoiled brat" ("κακομαθημένο")? Marcus 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to inform you that I have in my disposal copy of a discussion fully confirming what Geraki claims. I do not think that this is the right place to discuss the campaign against this administrator here. There is an open discussion is Greek wikipedia on the permanent ban of several users, where it might make sense, however, in good time.--FocalPoint 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that your first anonymous post was signed by Lady,[43] is proof of off-wiki communication. How else would she know who is the anonymous poster? It is very interesting that you appeared in the right moment after a year of absense. You find inapporpriate to discuss the canvassing here, but you find appropriate to discuss here the dessysoping of a sysop of another project. A discussion that was NOT announced to the greek community but only to users who have a bias against Kalogeropoulos. I rest my case. Geraki TL 12:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really sad, once more you construct a "proof" based on a hypothesis, a bad faith assumption. I have never spoken to Marcus, but it wasn't hard to find that the anonymous edit was his, since as he pointed he was the one called "liar", "troll" etc. [44].--Lady 6thofAu 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, I have not been absent for a year; I have decided to contribute anonymously to the Greek Wikipedia partly in order to avoid Kalogeropoulos' consistent pettiness and spiteful behaviour. I do not know any of the other contributors here, and have not been in communication with them. I challenge you to provide any evidence you may have that says otherwise, or kindly withdraw your unfounded allegations. I also politely request that you remove the reference that I have a bias against Kalogeropoulos, and please only comment on the topic under discussion. Marcus 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Το μόνο που θέλω να δηλώσω είναι οτι ο Καλογερόπουλος είναι ένα σπουδαίο μέλος της κοινότητάς μας και αξίζει να παραμείνει ως διαχειριστής. οι κατηγορίες εναντίον του είναι ειναι λογια που αποκρύπτουν ολη την αληθεια και παραπλανουν . η πραγματικότητα είναι οτι οι περισσότεροι απο αυτούς για πολλά χρόνια προκάλεσαν μεγάλα προβλήματα στην κοινότητα και ο Καλογερόπουλος έκανε μεγάλη προσπάθεια να αντιμετωπίσει αυτά που προκάλεσαν. Έτσι νομιζω οτι το πιο κατάλληλο μέρος για να αποφασίση σχετικά με το να φύγει από διαχειριστής ο Καλογερόπουλος είναι η κοινότητα της ελληνικής βικιπαίδειας, που έχει και καθαρή εικόνα των συμβάντων.

Please do not know English translation to somebody

--tony esopiλέγε 22:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A free translation of : User:Tony esopi's message:

The only thing I want to say is that Kalogeropoulos is an important member of our community and it is worth it for him to remain an administrator. The charges against him are stories with half-truths, the reality is that most of them [the users who are requesting desyssop] for many years caused great problems in the community, and Kalogeropoulos put in a lot of effort to deal with what they caused. So I think that the most suitable party to decide whether Kalogeropoulos should leave the position of administrator is the community of the greek Wikipedia, which has a clear picture of the events.

[A side note: I agree that the community must decide these matters. If the community cannot be trusted, who can?] -- ArielGlenn 23:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Geraki. It is a campaign against kalogeropoulos. Apart from that, this proposal make me feel insulted as much as the rest of the Greek Wikipedia community because those members underestimate and ignore community's ability to decide about situations which mainly concerns us. Furthermore 6 problematic members cannot decide, without the permission of the rest, the future of the community. So, I strongly believe that this place it is not appropriate to decide whether or not kalogeropoulos should stay as administrator.--Diu 12:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...i can also add... that i was blocked for 2 weeks just because i was sarcastic to an admin there. no warnings. no 1 day block. straight 2 weeks from the first time. then i get a unified login due to my account -which was different than my greek one and i was accused and blocked without even being asked why i got that account. note: i didn't edit, evade, disrupt, POV push or anything close to that. i had just proposed spoken wiki infrastructure and started giving spoken articles. i even posted my myspace account on both the old greek acc and the greek unified because i had nothing to hide, i just wanted a unified login. then they told me to choose an account when i get back from that 2 months(?) block. when i get back from it ..many months later they mistakenly IP block my range and i couldn't edit again, until a while ago that i saw i could. anyway i don't know much about the greek wiki, i am mainly active in the english one. i've almost completely lost interest in the greek wiki and the way it is obstructed by these people. though i'd strongly recommend to listen and act upon what Lady6th says, she's been there for quite some time and she wants what's best for the greek wiki.CuteHappyBrute 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling a user faggot [45] is just being sarcastic? You had 2 accounts, both active [46][47] and according to wikipedia's policy one of them should be blocked. Please don't fuel up this discussion with non-useful data. --Alaniaris 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You created your account in greek wikipedia after being bocked in english wikipedia and the first thing you did was to swear to the english admin who blocked you (and not a greek admin). You created a second account while you were blocked, and that had nothing to do with unified login as you created it on May 14th while SUL was available only after May 27th. Geraki TL 14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i was a user for a day or something, i had logged in wiki like 2 times. no warnings, first block 2 weeks. i'm not blocked now nor do i want to get involved with "your" wiki, i'm just supporting Lady in the truth that you have your own heretic way of dealing with matters that i believe is destructive for the greek wiki. i don't expect anything to be done, greek wiki will probably continue to be your little village for some years, where welcome is revert without answering to discussion, counseling is blocking, bullying newcomers is normal and being sarcastic but expecting others not to. CuteHappyBrute 20:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please allow me to present a few facts that are crucial in understanding to proposal made by User:Lady 6thofAu. Lady 6thofAu’s accusations are based on sort and misleading passages from far greater discussions, in both length and importance. Most important, however, she chose to bring this matter on Meta, certain of the confusion any translation attempt will cause to non-Greek users or the ambiguity of Greek words under translation, as pointed by user Marcus. In order for one to be able to understand the full extend of the lies presented as truth and fact, he needed to go through dozens of discussion pages, forum topics and edit wars the users were part of, since the beginning of the project in Greek. Mere passages, carefully selected, provide only a picture far from clear, but prove the malignancy of their claims.

Some of Lady 6thofAu’s claims are offending not only for Kalogeropoulos but for the entire community in general. Lady 6thofAu accuses Kalogeropoulos of enforcing original research (on that link [48]), which is untrue since she was the one to remove references from within the text [49] and insisting into incorporating data that could easily be considered offensive for a living person, but she fails to mention that she herself tried to enforce her own opinion although seven different user have argued against her, presenting seven different opinions[50], despite all the noise that was made on September 2007 about another Greek politician's biography in en.wikipedia [51] and the negative publicity [52] it created about wikipedia, something that made us extremely vigilant on the context of living persons biographies. She also withholds the fact that the libelous data were presented in her user page [53] despite wikipedia’s policy on user pages.

Moreover, Lady 6thofAu accuses Kalogeropoulos of being ironic and sarcastic and of using his personal knowledge and personal job to prove himself right. She herself however has been doing the exact same thing, being ironic and using her personal knowledge on another argument [54], where she mocked a user saying "But I presume you didn’t go to an English university to hear it [the pronunciation of a certain word]" (Υποθέτω όμως ότι δεν πήγες σε κάποιο αγγλικό πανεπιστήμιο να το ακούσεις)[55]. She then continues on the user’s talk page to admit that "…the only source I have till now is the way my professor pronounced it at the university. He maybe was wrong but I trust him more than English Wikipedia"(Το αστέρι ίσως να λέγεται και έτσι, η μόνη πηγή που έχω ως τώρα είναι ο τρόπος που το πρόφερε ο καθηγητής μου στο πανεπιστήμιο. Ίσως να έκανε λάθος, αλλά τον εμπιστεύομαι πολύ περισσότερο από την αγγλική Βικιπαίδεια)[56] and when the user, offended withdraws from any further discussion on that matter [57] she continues her mockery[58], completely ignoring all that she claims to protect. On a more recent occasion she insisted to remove a POV tag put on an article she created, without giving the user the time to explain his opinion, and then engaging a ferocious discussion against anyone that dared to express a different opinion than her own [59][60].

In the sake of keeping my post short and not consuming this discussion’s space or the potential reader’s time I will not continue with repulsing the false accusation made, nor will I refer to the contact of the users that support Kalogeropoulos dessysoping. Their conduct as well as their behavior towards other users, wikipedia policy and good faith itself is well documented and available to anyone that might be interested in Greek wikipedia. But rest assured that this proposal has nothing to do with user/admin Kalogeropoulos alone, it is well organized plan to shake Greek community’s confidence towards its admins, as it was suggested by user Pvasiliadis, "This could also pose a stop for this kind of behaviour that has also become common among other sysops of the Greek wikipedia" and user Vasileios78 "I am sure that the dessyssoping or not of Kalogeropoulos will affect very much the march of events in the Greek Wikipedia: it will affect the way “adminitrators’ authority is viewed in the Greek Wikipedia.". The accusations of users Pvasiliadis ("As one of the older administrators, he tends to steer other administrators. Other sysops also imitate this egocentric administerial attitude with the above mentioned results") and Hieronymus ("His selective tolerance of unacceptable behaviours, as well as the frequent stretching, adapting or downright violating Wikipedia policies to suit his arguments or rationalise decisions have been setting a pattern which unfortunately the rest of the administrators' team in the Greek wikipedia have been following.") are bluntly outrageous, insulting and beyond reality, but, unfortunately, a proof of their true intentions.

This proposal is not about dessysoping user Kalogeropoulos in the face of making Greek Wikipedia better. This proposal is biased by personal likes and dislikes, personal opinions and beliefs and the attempt to express them through the wikipedia project in general. The users supporting Kalogeropoulos dessysoping have repeatedly disturbed Greek wikipedia’s function by engaging into circular arguments on religion based articles, ruthless edit-wars, breaching repeatedly wikipedia’s policy and creating a general commotion around them. This proposal is their attempt to evade a proposal made against them in Greek wikipedia, an effort to weaken and manipulate by the doctrine of “divine and conquer”. None of the above users has voted for Kalogeropoulos’ dessysoping when he made himself available, not even user Pvasiliadis himself[61]. Therefore this discussion, as well as any other concerning Greek Wikipedia, should be discussed within itself, where all the facts are available and its users familiar with persons and conducts.

Thank you for you time --Alaniaris 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do have to give you credit for the long and eloquent report, but what does any of this have to do with Kalogeropoulos behaviour? It seems to me that you are not denying that he has engaged in everything he's been accused of. Let's not waste much more time: what action do you think is approporiate for an admin who has generated that much controversy through his misguided actions? Marcus 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus audacium[edit]

Dear all,

Whereas your move to succour Kalogeropoulos in his "time of need" (we have read during the past 24 hours the signed presence and statements from practically half the administrative team of the Greek Wikipedia project) is touching indeed, your commentary does nothing to change the documented and unalterable facts on the basis of which this request was filed and on the basis of which I have concurred.
As his fellow administrators, you have done nothing (and can do nothing) to convince anyone of the inalienable facts stated and documented above, namely, that your colleague and my fellow contributor has long been applying his capacity as a sysop in an arbitrary and renegade manner, alternatively engaging in:

  1. Offensive speech
  2. Derogatory speech
  3. Disputable and subjective banning criteria
  4. Failure to guide, particularly neophytes

The instances of the first two are there. They have been attested and can be further attested. They can be looked up in dictionaries. Regarding the third, there is plenty of evidence from the users attesting here, from the ban records, as well as those who may have possibly not realised yet that this discussion is taking place. Whatever the case might be, and although no one expects an administrator to be perfect, there is a point when limits are reached and broken and there is no going back. One cannot wantonly go about using abusive speech on Wikipedia public space, particularly against those who are banned and cannot speak against one and expect to remain a sysop. This particular case by its own virtue is a blatant violation of sysop capacity.

Then there is Kalogeropoulos' response to this matter: the travesty of an apology which led to the response of three users from the community. When one of the banned users responded, he was quickly told off and mocked at ("His magnanimity was amiable, wasn't it?"[62]) Kalogeropoulos' violent and threatening response to the motion on this page has already been discussed above.

What is mostly disturbing, however, is your stance in this matter. You have made a desperate effort to class the users who have supported the desysop request on this page under one umbrella, in order to pass on the idea that there is some kind of insidious motivation behind this request. Your ad hominems moved along the lines of "doctrinal", then "political", then when that failed, just "problematic", merely to demonstrate that this request is the product of a conspiracy. But looking at you, you must realise that you have much more in common than the users supporting this request have: your sysop status, as well as a plethora of past comments, according to which, any attack against the sysop status would constitute an attack against the community. From where I am standing, then, it is fair to ask the question: who is it that deletes Kalogeropoulos' talk page and its traces on a regular basis (another administrator)? who is it that attempted to delete traces of Kalogeropoulos abusive speech in the past but who was not hesitant to ban a simple user at the first instance of abusive talk (another administrator)? Your comments above show beyond a shadow of a doubt that you condone Kalogeropoulos' conduct as a team and that while this status quo is present in the Greek wikicommunity, no hope for improvement can be expected. From where I am standing, you are the ones conspiring against the community to retain a liberal-for-you, tyrannical-for-the-rest-of-us status quo.

Indeed, taking a closer look at your comments, these are the techniques you have used to defend your colleague:

  1. Misinformation
    1. Focalpoint:
    "User Kalogeropoulos offered himself to the disposition of the users of Βικιπαίδεια. Users have voted on the proposal of User Kalogeropoulos, in his favour."
    -He did, but the ones who would vote were banned from voting. Only three users voted in his favour. Compare that with 7 users voting in disfavour here. Some of the users voting in his favour also voted in favour of removing the long term bans of some of the "problematic" users concurring to the request here.
  2. Propaganda
    1. Geraki:
      Almost everything contained in the above accusations is false, incoherent, misrepresented, or at least only part of the truth, and most of them have already been discussed in the greek wikipedia.
      -Already dealt with by user Marcus, no real evidence is provided to countersay any of the documented claims of offensive behaviour on behalf of Kalogeropoulos. And how could there be, since the claims are documented? This is just a red herring, aiming at the generation of impressions.
    2. Alaniaris:
      This proposal is their attempt to evade a proposal made against them in Greek wikipedia, an effort to weaken and manipulate by the doctrine of "divine and conquer".
      -On the contrary, this proposal preceded Kalogeropoulos' proposal to permanently ban users lady6thofau and pvasiliadis, which came instantly after he was informed of this totally legitimate course of action.
  3. Red Herrings
    1. Alaniaris: Persists on the question of original research, following on Kalogeropoulos' trend of blowing it out of proportion, as if finding lady6thofau more guilty of controversy in this instance would make Kalogeropoulos less guilty of the rest of the innumerable instances of sysop status abuse.

Finally, and in response to Alaniaris' comments:

"But rest assured that this proposal has nothing to do with user/admin Kalogeropoulos alone, it is well organized plan to shake Greek community’s confidence towards its admins"

I feel obliged to respond in the following manner: This is but a request to desysop Kalogeropoulos. Nothing more, nothing less. Even so, this last massive intervetion by the Greek administrative team as an attempt to "expose" Kalogeropoulos' accusers and defend their colleague has spoken a great deal of the level of Wiki-standards of those who stand behind it particularly when considering the level of wiki-standards of the person they are defending; it is strictly my personal hope that I will not be the only one making this correlation.--Hieronymus 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Hieronymus,
it is not good to accuse the "admin cabal" for supporting Kalogeropoulos ("we have read during the past 24 hours the signed presence and statements from practically half the administrative team of the Greek Wikipedia project") when we already saw practically half of the currently blocked users show up to co-sign this proposal only hours after it was made and without any announcement in any other place. Speaking of the truth, is it not true that Lady, Pvasiliadis, Vasileios78 and you are IRC buddies? Is it not true that you (or at least Lady) have contacted people off-wiki in order to ask if they will support such a proposal? Is it not true that Pvasiliadis, Vasileios78 and you were blocked for the same incident and you are not "independent" users? Is it not true that Lady intentified the #wikipedia-el channel as the "den of thieves"? Is it not true that Lady herself wrote in the above proposal "I am/we are" indicating that it's a proposal she has previously arranged with others? Is it not true that no announcement was made for this proposal to the greek wikipedia, so you never invited the community to express itself? You don't want the admins' opinion (while the admins are part of the community) so, with whom did you want to discuss the proposal?

You wrote "he did, but the ones who would vote were banned from voting. Only three users voted in his favour. Compare that with 7 users voting in disfavour here." 1) First of all, don't try to fool people, you were not "banned from voting" but "blocked for flaming" enough time before that. 2) no wiki allows blocked users to vote on anything, 3) the users who voted were not admins so they were not members of the "cabal" you accuse. Did any uninvolved user vote against him? No. In fact even Pvasiliadis who was given the chance although he was blocked, didn't accuse or vote against Kalogeropoulos (it was probably early for stacking up votes).

You wrote "this proposal preceded Kalogeropoulos' proposal to permanently ban users lady6thofau and pvasiliadis, which came instantly after he was informed of this totally legitimate course of action.". This is a great factual error. This was preceded by the following:

  1. the August discussion on the possibility of permanent ban on a clear connection with Pvasiliadis' (and others) disruption of the project [63]
  2. the October 10th, Αχρήστης' proposal on the permanent ban of Lady, Adolapts and Pvasiliadis [64] which was not discussed. Kalogeropoulos made clear that he reinstated this preceding proposal.

It is very typical to accuse the "cabal" Hienonymus, but I'm afraid that since you did not ask for the community's opinion but you chose a different audience, you can't complain about the participation. You could place your wikidrama in greek wikipedia to end it once and forever. Oh, yeah, I forgot: "the ones who would vote were banned from voting". This is an acknowledgment that you don't expect enough active users to support the proposal and you rely on the votes of three blocked users and inactive invited users.

And so if you want some little words on the "innumerable instances of sysop status abuse" I will give some fast answers:

  • These are not innumerable instances, in fact half of them refer to only one instance where Lady was instisting that her POV was above the consensus of seven users. She split it to appear as unconnected incidents but there is no meaning of them out of context, e.g. what do you understand from "he stated about wikipedia "Wikipedia has acquired a new style as a place of gossips""?
  • She fails to identify herself as directly involved on numerous instances above, trying to pass off as a third party, eg she writes "he asked a user" and "he blocked a user" instead of "he asked me" and "he blocked me".
  • Some biased/false isolated accusations:
    • "He attempted to compile the entire policy by himself, without giving a notice in the public forum or anywhere so that users could discuss about the proposal[65]."
    • "He deleted a vandalized article, failing to check any previous contributions. It turned out that behind the vandalism there was a complete article, a user found out and wrote him a short notice asking him the reasons of deletion and a revert. Kalogeropoulos insulted the user in his response. When other users pointed out that his behavior was not appropriate, Kalogeropoulos did not make any further comments[66]"
      • But she omits that the user who wrote "a short notice asking him the reasons of deletion" essentialy accused him of bad faith, but later he assured that "it was misunderstanding" and that Kalogeropoulos "should not be accused for no reason".[67] Hardly an "insulted user".
    • The wikilawyering about 3 or 4 reverts when Lady was clearly acting against all policies and consensus has no meaning out of context. She would be blocked by anyone.

You support these factual accusations as compiled by Lady; you supported them all and as they are. If they are false, you will have supported accusations without checking them, based on a preexisting dislike. Geraki TL 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Does it make any difference if Kalogeropoulos called me or any other user names? Is he justified for speaking in a rude way to particular users (those he doesn't agree with)? The answer is simply no.
  2. He has compiled policies by himself more than once. You mention one that I found out a week after he did so: I was the one who notified the rest of the community so that he wouldn't compile this policy alone, the timestamps are there. If you remember correctly that was a couple of weeks after he told me "go make your own wikipedia" when I talked about the need of such policy. The link is above. I've also included an example where he used the policy under discussion to delete an article. Do you still think that as "enough talk"?
  3. Swearing against users is an insult not only to the user being attacked by Kalogeropoulos each time, but also to the rest of the community having to bear with such words he uses. Do you think he is a good admin when he deletes articles by mistake and then he is rude to users alerting him? I don't think so.
  4. Kalogeropoulos has stated many times that "Wikipedia has acquired a new style of gossips" or that it is "a place of gossips" etc. Do you want an admin that attacks the project in such way?
  5. The question in the greek forum was if anyone wanted Kalogeropoulos banned for ever. Consider that
  • banning is used to correct users' behaviour, not to make them leave the project.
  • he has banned most of the users that he attacked in the past.
  • many users have left the project, because of such behavior.
For your interest, I've added more examples of abuse actions to various users. The facts I've added highlight even more my belief that we, as in "we, the community", well... we don't want such an abusive admin. Keep in mind that it is the same community that Kalogeropoulos called "company" if and when they agreed to the desysop proposal.--Lady 6thofAu 20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am just a casual user of English Wiki living in Greece and the current discussion caught my eye. As a Greek speaker, I can verify the claims about offensive and rude language from the links on the top of the page. Thank you. --Dorlan1951 16:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Cabals and Conspiracies[edit]

I find it rather sad that this discussion is degenerating into an exchange of silly accusations. I am sure that we all can go on for years trying to determine whether those who have turned up to support Kalogeropoulos are part of an administration cabal or whether those who have stated their concern are conspirators aiming to (insert absurdity of choice). These claims are unprovable, counter-productive and ultimately, irrelevant. What can be proved, and has been proven, is that Kalogeropoulos behaves with wanton disregard for not only Wikipedia policies but also plain civility. We are thus left before three simple questions: (a) is such behaviour to be condoned? (b) if not, what action is appropriate? and (c) wouldn't it be best to reach a wide consensus, rather than leave the matter exclusively into the hands of the Greek Wikipedia admins, whose controversial decisions are -at least in part- feeding the problem? Marcus 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

<edit removed by Kalogeropoulos>..... -- 00:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anomymus IP is not a good idea especially when using my disputes. Thank you!--Kalogeropoulos 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Resolution[edit]

After a discussion/vote by the community at, users w:el:Χρήστης:Pvasiliadis and w:el:Χρήστης:Lady_6thofAu were banned from the community, the first for three years w:el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά/Προτάσεις φραγής χρηστών/Πρόταση φραγής Pvasiliadis and the second for two years w:el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά/Προτάσεις φραγής χρηστών/Πρόταση φραγής Lady6thofAu. Anyone who is reading the information here should try to follow those dicussions as well; google translate may not be perfect but it is NPOV and may help readers to understand what took place. -- ArielGlenn 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to say that I have added the above links at the request of User:Pathoschild. -- ArielGlenn 21:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google translations:
Pathoschild 22:05:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
My ban was not the resolution of the community, if you think it was please provide the votes for a 2 years ban. All I see in the 3-years ban discussion is failure to reach a consensus, despite the fact that all the admins came to ban me. Moreover, I don't see any official reason for that proposal (apart from "bringing back an old proposal"). I would prefer though to leave the discussion about my ban for some other request more relevant, I really fail to understand how a ban on me is a resolution on the above Kalogeropoulos's actions. ArielGlenn, since you know greek... would you deny that the above diffs and words used by Kalogeropoulos's are extremely offensive? Could you give your own translation and interpretation to the actions above?--Lady 6thofAu 11:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community manipulation and sysops' gross corruption[edit]

  • These bans are part of the problem mentioned above. To bring the problem in the light is not easily acceptable, especially in these situations of the el.wikipedia that promote a corrupted view of the system operator's privileges.
  • The one that will read between the lines of [even these Google-translated] pages concerning these bans will understand that the community was not unanimous in these harsh actions and the community was pushed by certain administrators to be divided and have their self-interest opinion imposed. The majority of the other users that supported administrator's extreme positions were the ones that previously had views conflicted with these two users in miscellaneous articles and found this case a good chance to get rid of their different point of views. The real majority of the active community did not take stand on the matter of these bans.
  • It is just one more brick in the disgraceful course of action of the majority of the Greek administrators —a sample of which is described in some details above. The sysop "dictatorship" imposed currently to the Greek Wikipedia is obvious to its rapidly diminishing users' pariticipation and its overall quality. I am not a newbie in Wikipedia (contributing since June 7th, 2005) and I am very moderate when I choose words to describe the heavy corrosion of the Greek Wikipedia's administration. This page's request is a plea to the Wikimedia Meta wiki to consider the reasons of the el.wikipedia degradation. Thank you, --Pvasiliadis 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference translations[edit]

  1. a b [Since you are interested in the biographical genre you should be interested in spoonerism, as it is part of the biography.] I think I made it clear that I'm not interested, dear. What should be of interest according to your opinion, cannot be my interest. Historical writing and thus biography are parts of my scientific and work occupation. Oh my, how it can be possible to base my scientific and work occupation on sources about scandals and political analysis like those you propose. For goodness !!!!
  2. a b In a very cool disposition I'm telling you madame that your point of view is simply quite unqualified. Moreover I am asking you to ignore my point of view unless it is related to the article, because you are not in any position to make a qualified point as concerns biography. Matters are simple: unless you are the writer of a biography or anything else... even a single paper would be enough for me since you are not interested in my occupation. And of course -a friendly advice- don't make the mistake to be ironic with me as you have done with user:Mmsoft.