Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Piotrus

Final (46/66/14). Closed as unsuccessful by WJBscribe @ 08:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Piotrus (talk · contribs) – Piotrus joined Wikipedia in April 2004. He is an important content contributor who has made more than 148,000 edits and helped to write more than 20 featured articles, more than 50 good articles, and more than 500 DYK articles. Piotrus became an administrator in January 2005.

My first experiences with Piotrus, I'm sorry to say, were unpleasant. In early 2008, he and I found ourselves on opposite sides of a series of edit conflicts on several articles concerning Polish-Jewish history. I think we both assumed the worst about one other, and our behavior reflected those feelings. Nevertheless, Piotrus and I managed to get past our initial mutual distrust and develop a Wiki-friendship.

During 2009, Piotrus participated in the "Eastern European mailing list", for which he was site-banned for three months and topic-banned for an additional period. In the course of that ArbCom case, Piotrus was accused of abusing the tools in one instance. (He semi-protected an article based on a mailing list request. Two weeks later, User:Will Beback fully protected the article, thereby confirming the existence of a problem. See the protection log for all the details, including the subsequent extensions of page protection.) Piotrus voluntarily gave up the bit.[1]

During his ban, Piotrus—using other editors as proxies with the permission of ArbCom[2]—rewrote Lech Wałęsa and brought it to GA status.

Throughout his Wiki-career, Piotrus has been a tireless contributor to WikiProject Poland. He monitors newly created articles related to Poland and, where appropriate, cleans them up or adds applicable clean-up tags (including nominating them for deletion when necessary), nominates them for DYK, and invites their creators to join the WikiProject.

Piotrus is also an Ambassador and was a member of the (now-defunct) Ambassador Steering Committee. Students in his classes have written more than ten good articles.

In my opinion, Piotrus has demonstrated that he once again deserves the community's trust with the mop and broom. His behavior for the past three years has been uncontroversial, and that period represents as long a period of quality editing as many new administrators have. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust. I accept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment. Before this is closed in an hour or two, I want to thank all of those who participated in good faith. I appreciate the time many put into researching and commenting, and I did learn a lot from a number of constructive comments and suggestions. Let's meet again when I had the time to put the lessons from here into practice, and the stars are more right :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination from The Blade of the Northern Lights

My apologies for being a little late to the party here. My statement essentially echoes Malik Shabazz's with regards to Piotrus' value as an editor I'm usually an AE admin, and I'm certainly aware of the history here; however, that was more than 3 years ago, and I see no indication there will be a repeat. In that time, Piotrus has contributed some excellent content, and as Malik Shabazz says above there will be plenty to gain from him being an admin again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Currently, I have my sight on the 170,000 file backlog at Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates. I have taken part in a related project on Polish Wikipedia that resulted in all freely licensed images there migrated to Commons a while back, and I want to help with this on en wiki, too (and yes, I know not everything can be copied). While non-admins can tag and copy pictures (which I do on occasion), they cannot clean up after themselves (by deleting the local remaining original), and personally I just don't like to leave the job unfinished, forcing another admin to clean up after me. In case you are wondering, I consider myself relatively familiar with copyright issues ([I wrote a guide to Polish copyright on Commons).

Similarly, every few days I will run into issues such as pages in need of admin help after a botched up move, pages in need of history merge, and such, which currently I can just report, even through I know how to fix them. I may also help with some other backlogs (speedy deletion and such); just like with article writings, I like to wander from area to area and fix some things. I probably will not be overly active in AN, or such. I learned that focusing on improving this project, rather than talking about how to do it, is more interesting and less stressful :)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am in the Top 100 Most Active Wikipedians; I write a lot of content (dozens of FAs, GAs, hundreds of DYKs); I supervise several WikiProjects (Poland, Sociology), I am one of the Wikipedia:Ambassadors, I was on the Ambassador Steering Committee, I contribute to Signpost's monthly Wikimedia Research Newsletter, I research and public academic papers about Wikipedia, and I teach with Wikipedia. There's more, but let's just say that I am a Wikipedioholic with many hats, ok?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Well, the elephant in the room is that back in late 2009 I was stressed enough to make some rather significant errors in my judgement, such as violating Wikipedia:Canvassing, which led to an arbitration case where I resigned my adminship and received a 3 months ban, followed by several months of other restrictions. Yet as soon as the case started, I recognized my errors and ceased any controversial activities. This was recognized by the ArbCom, as majority of the remedies concerning my person were modified to be less restrictive or lifted early, with the last restrictions lifted two years ago (February 2011). Since the case ended, now more then three years ago, I am proud to say, I was not involved in any wikidramu: you will not find my name as a party in any ArbCom case since, nor was there any need to discuss my behavior on other foras (AE, ANI, etc.). I would like to think that my actions since then speak for themselves, and are those of a constructive editor who has learned how to avoid mistakes of the past. I have learned how stressful wiki can be, and how to handle stress and conflict; I would like to think that my experience in this aspect is a valuable asset to the project: I have seen both sides of the proverbial fence already and I can empathize and understand other editors a lot better thanks to that. A lot of what I've learned I've put into a series of mini-wikiessays, which you are welcome to read; they include my thoughts on issues such as conflict resolutions, admin elections, when to block or ban editors, and many other issues that I believe are essential for each admin (and most editors) to consider.

Two final notes:

a) while I have never in the past used the admin tools on anybody I considered involved with myself, I reaffirm that I have no intentions to use them as such. As my old amin log can reveal, I only blocked a few obvious vandals in my old days, and I certainly don't expect my future admin block log to be any different. I also intend to be much more careful with all other instances of admin tools use (such as protection), and if I see any possible conflict of interests due to involvement with other editors, I will decline to use them.

b) just as I was in the past, I will be open to recall.

Additional questions from Razionale

4. A little background: From when until when did the Eastern European mailing list run? From when until when were you a member of it? (please be exact on dates and short on words)

A: I have deleted the archives a while ago so my memory may be a bit off. IIRC it ran from Dec 2008 till I don't know when, perhaps it is still running. When I unsubscribed from it (2010?) it had no active active Wikipedia editors I can recall. Any and all activities criticizes by Arbcom and the community ceased in fall 2009 as soon as the EEML case was opened, and the few posts that I recall since then where about RL European politics (like, uh, elections in Hungary or such), which anyway constituted majority of posts even before the case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

5. You mentioned you violated canvassing. In what other ways did you act inappropriately during that time (by your own judgement) precisely? Also describe here your role as an admin please, which has been described as appropriate (by the nominator) and as abusive (for example by Nanobear), focusing on evidence rather than persons.

A: I am not very fond of political selfkritik. so I'll be brief, with no prejudice if you or anyone else wants to ask a less vague question. Inappropriate canvassing or being canvassed is the primary thing I recall. My role as an admin should be visible in my admin action logs (deletion, block. I deleted few pages, blocked few vandals... the usual low key mop'n'bucket gnomish work that was and still is often backlogged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

6. Which users did you supervise as a Wiki-ambassador? Is it the same as the class projects? Who remained editing after your class projects ended that we could have a look at?

A: I didn't keep exact notes, and as any ambassador will tell you, they tend to blend in one another; few students are active enough to be memorable. In my role of the instructor - much more consuming, and where I also acted as an ambassador for my classes - I had to be much more active. I maintain a list of those projects here. None of my students are very active, through a few made some edits after the course ended. My best student was Kgw2 (talk · contribs)), profiled on WMF blog here. He recently told me he intends to come back and edit another subject or two. While I am not aware of any studies of the issue, I believe that the student to editor retention ratio throughout all of Wikipedia Education program is under 1%, and I was not lucky enough to mentor a real Wikipedian. If you know of any course that consistently turns students into Wikipedians I'd love to learn more about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Have you continued to have contact with users of the Eastern European mailing group (email, chat or any other means of communication aside from WP) after the arbitration ended? If "yes", with who? Thank you for your answers.

A: First, I believe that this question invades my privacy (which is a concept I treat very seriously; your millage may vary - I simply consider private correspondence to be, well, private, as in "not to be discussed or inquired about publicly"). But I'll answer it in good faith. I get about 2 wiki emails per week, and maybe I send one every two. Considering subsequent replies, let's estimate 10 wikiemails per week, so maybe I exchanged about 1500 emails since EEML case ended. I can't recall any specifc ones with parties to EEML, but I am sure there were a few. 10? Maybe 30? I will decline to name which ones, as 1) I don't remember and 2) I believe this would violate their privacy. I also talk to numerous Wikipedians, including standing and former arbcom members and many admins, on Facebook, Skype, GChat, IRC, in real life, and so on. Again, probably a few messages of those (and I won't even try to estimate those) are to the parties of the said case. In fact, I am pretty sure I send regular yearly Facebook birthday wishes to at least two of them, both of them active and in good standing on this project, just like I do to many other Wikipedians who connected to me on social media. I was also a part of of a Wikipedian guild in a MMORPG that included one of those editors among its many members, since apparently both of us liked that game. So, you see, I talk with hundreds of editors, on and off wiki. Just like anyone else, including you (perhaps I even exchanged an email or two with you?). Is this revelation surprising to anyone? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Snowolf

8. For the users who are not familiar with the EEML case, could you comment on FloNight's comments or point us to where you have done so in the past? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A: Which comment, the WikiCup one? Another stale story from 2009, huh? From what I recall, I felt that it was unfair for an arbitrator participating in a WikiCup to propose a ban or a block or another participant of the said competition, and so I asked him/her to recuse him/her self. That arbitrator disagreed. I don't think I have emails related to this, IIRC I only emailed an ArbCom clerk asking if this is a ground for recusing, the email was forwarded to the Committee, some feathers got ruffled, and next thing I know there's the comment by an angry arbitrator about the gall I had to call one of the arbitrators involved. Or maybe I did email that arbitrator directly, and he got offended that I dared to call his/her integrity into question. For the record, I never thought they did propose to ban or block me to reduce competition, they were probably unaware of my participation, but I felt I should point out that there is a potential CoI. Meh. Perhaps it happened somewhat differently, it was three years ago, and I am not even sure I am fully right on my own "he said, she said" here. Anyway, if you want to draw a conclusion from this, this is this: if I will be an admin (or arbitrator... yeah right) in any future point, and if I realize that I am in such a CoI, I'd still recuse myself from any admin/arbitrator capacity in a given case. (I have seen, for the record, Arbitrators recusing themselves simply because they were members of the same WikiProject as an involved party, and while personally I wouldn't call a CoI in such a scenario, I also think it is better to be safe than sorry and to allow one's judgement to be clouded by personal interactions with another editor). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Krzysiu

9. You've said that you've taken a part in moving files from pl.wikipedia to Commons. I was helping WarX in organizing it, but to be honest I don't remember you there. Could you give details about moving it? When, how much and just how... There were two parts - tagging it and next moving it. Moving it was kind of automatical. Could you provide link to some photos you've tagged or moved? Krzysiu (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I am pretty sure File:Gdynia-KamiennaGora.PNG is one of those I moved. If you look at my commons edits around that time, there should be more, ditto for pl wiki edits. I am not sure how to provide better links, let me know if you do. PS. I worked a lot with User:Masur. See my Commons talk of that time, ex. commons:User_talk:Piotrus/Archive_2#Nastepna. Probably also stuff on pl wiki talk too. I just have to run IRL right now. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So I understand you meant you've moved files using CommonsHelper or I'm missing something? I'll ask Masur at morning to confirm your work with him. Krzysiu (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember which tool I used, I'd have to look into that peeper, is it important? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

10. Why did you come for RFA seeking to regain adminship and not by request to the Arbitration Committee first and seen whether they accepted or declined it and come here only if they declined it. Is there any specific reason for this ? I would thank you for great dedication and commitment to the Project both online and offline .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not him but in his case, they specifically said at the time that if he wanted his admin tools back he would have to go to WP:RFA. Also, please sign your question. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message but as per Piotrus's adminship states 1.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), having resigned as administrator while this arbitration case was pending, may seek to regain adminship only by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A: I wanted to give the community the opportunity to participate in that process, and to benefit from their comments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from WorldTraveller101

11. I noticed that you have been blocked four times, one of which was for three months and was enforced by the ABSC. Can you tell me what happened and why?

A:The first one was a 3h 3RR block, back when I was learning how Wikipedia works. The 3 months block is the EEML one, already linked and discussed by me and my nom in the opening. Two other blocks were quickly challenged, and reversed, and should be explained in the unblock log (admin misunderstanding IP vandalism reversion for 3RR, and admin misunderstanding my post-EEML topic block; the latter unblock had the support of an AE appeal, IIRC). Assuming one can discard the two successfully challenged blocks, outside my EEML block, my other block history consists of a 3h block in 2006. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Piotrus
• Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2
• Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3

• Links for Piotrus: Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Piotrus can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• This should probably be closed before it spirals out of control. It's not going to be successful, why wait until someone winds up blocked? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• While WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW are not policies, they are usually applied to candiates that haven't been around as long as this candidate and are used to prevent too much newcomer biting. Piotrus, I'm sure, knows that he/she can withdraw this request if he/she feels it won't pass and there are no more constructive comments coming in. Without reading this entire RFA, I'd be inclined to leave it open until withdrawn or seven days, whichever came first (and if it was the latter, after gauging whether or not consensus for promotion exists). Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • SNOW is for 0% support, not 33%. That page should really be newbie-proofed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, closing this debate would be in the spirit of SNOW. To reach 70%, Piotrus 2 would require 117 consecutive support votes; and the support percentage has not wavered more than two points from 34% since I first viewed this AfD. I like the snowball's chances better. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• To get the spirit of that policy you might want to reread Wikipedia:SNOW#The snowball test, snow closures really aren't for ones where you think you can predict the outcome early, they are for near unanimous results. ϢereSpielChequers 11:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• O.k., I reread it. The snowball tests are simple rules of thumb for retroactively testing a probability estimate - the probability that the outcome of the vote could change. For small numbers of votes, the vote has to be near-unanimous, for two reasons: the probability of a support vote vote is not well established, and some new fact could be revealed that changes the probability. In this RfA, the probability is well-established and no new facts have been revealed for some time. I made a couple of different rough estimates of the outcome of this vote changing to 70% support (i.e., just making it into the marginal range), and both were well under 10^-50 - a staggeringly small probability. All of this is somewhat tongue in cheek - I know that no one is going to develop a statistical model to decide when to SNOW close; but if I were Piotrus, I would have withdrawn the nomination long ago. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I only cared about winning, I'd have had done so. But I also want to get as much advice (even in the form of straight criticism) from the community as possible. There's no bad outcome that can come out of this, I still can become a better editor thanks to this ordeal, tools can wait. Wikipedia will survive if some images are moved a year of few years later, and few vandals blocked a few seconds later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you really think there is anything more to say? I think it was all said in the first 24 hours. The only new development is that you're starting to get oppose votes from people who are annoyed with you for not withdrawing. That's why SNOW was written - you may not mind if other editors waste their time, but they do. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Let it go RockMagnetist. If a respected long term user wishes to keep the RfA open, then let's just respect that wish. No one gets paid to edit here (not as far as I know anyway!) so a little understanding can go a long way. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• He asked for feedback, didn't he? I'm just providing feedback without the vote. Anyway, I have said all I want to say on this issue. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support, but let me get the following question out of the way first. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the EEML Partey?" Yes, four years ago. "Why?" Because like Piotrus, I take Wikipedia very seriously. And... by the way, four years is a lifetime in Wikipedia. Many things have improved, including communication and 'people skills' of many long-term users. Many of our fears never materialized. Now, more than ever, we need to maximize our effectiveness and (if possible) upgrade the status of our most valued editors such as Piotrus to increase student engagement. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   I don't need this! Quote (please note, no prior interaction before this RFA): What a sad, poor little man you are Poeticbent! Giano 19:20, 28 April 2013.

   Neither do I. With no previous interaction, what a pity it is that you had to seek me out: perhaps it would have been best for you to say nothing at all [3].  Giano  14:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   I don't want to have anything to do with User:Giano ever again in my life, but at least, please note how he's lying to You in here about my motives. I edited that article since 2008. He never did before this RFA. Poeticbent talk 15:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Enthusiastic support. First I should mention that I became aware of this draft RfA because, as I mention below to Giano, I saw his insulting (I felt) commentary on Piotrus' talk page, which is on my watchlist.

   Regarding EEML, feeling beset by editors pushing an anti-Eastern European agenda was not a good excuse for starting to discuss Eastern European topics, or WP, off-WP. All involved have long since apologized. All have moved on except, it appears, for a predictable minority of detractors involved in a continuum of content contentiousness before, during, and after the case, and still unwilling to move on from their version of the past of years ago.

   If some wish to see this as rehabilitation, so be it. If some wish to lobby that Piotrus is an intractable evil incapable of rehabilitation, then after such a long time having passed, that is solely a reflection on the individual making the accusation.

   I have complete and total confidence that Piotrus will exceed the community's expectations in every way; I have this confidence because Piotrus knows the magnifying glasses and the nay-sayers will be out in force, yet has made this personal—and courageous, likely knowing some would not wish to let go of their personal investment in past conflict—commitment to Wikipedia to take this important and symbolic step.

   Piotrus' WP activities including its use in higher education are an exemplary model of the best WP has to offer. Who should the WP community empower to represent the best of WP? Those who have leveraged and demonstrated our pedagogic value in the real world, or those who show up only to toss barbs? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   P.S. I hope that a fresh crop of participants will look at the work Piotrus has been doing on/with WP and ignore the unfortunate rehash of personal accounts of history by prior content combatants. If someone is looking for "truth", examine who has advocated for what WP content as encyclopedic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   It feels like being cheated to realize that an editor found to be part of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list is glorifying Piotrus and the EEML without acknowledging his own membership. Just saying for the future you can follow the good example of Poeticbent.--Razionale (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

3. You have my full trust and support. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
4. If you've been editing wikipedia for 9 years, then why not? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 09:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
5. support him--Sandstunk (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   <20 edits, concerns about validity raised on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

6. Weak support, per NintendoFan.--Razionale (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I don't like the replies to the questions, always watering down things with a reference to memory. "few posts that I recall", "(2010?)", "primary thing I recall", "I am not aware of", "no active active Wikipedia editors I can recall", "my memory may be a bit off", "I didn't keep exact notes", "I have deleted the archives a while ago", "few students are active enough to be memorable", "I don't know when", "I can't recall", "I don't remember", "probably a few", "From what I recall", "I don't think I have", "Or maybe I did", "Perhaps it happened somewhat differently", " I am not even sure I am fully right on my own". References to memory like "I don't recall" are very unconvincing and a deletion of records too. He doesn't even remember the year in which he left the mailing list? I notice, on the other hand, a less aggressive tone, so I don't change my vote.--Razionale (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Support, per above. Water Squid (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   <20 edits, concerns about validity raised on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

8. Strong support. Cool, constructive, knowledgeable about scholarship and WP policy. A good man. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Moral support. If we aren't prepared to forgive and forget the EEML stuff, then we're creating yet another incentive to sockpuppetry. This user shows a strong attachment to Wikipedia and a will to create content. I should admit to certain concerns about Piotrus' temperament, but if promoted, he would certainly not be the worst sysop we have in that regard.—S Marshall T/C 14:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
10. Support. I've known Piotrus for a while and worked with him in person as well as on-wiki, and I would not hesitate to trust him with the admin tools. I'm sure he has the wisdom to separate admin duties from the occasionally-contentious political topics that he sometimes works on, and frankly, he's got a worse reputation than he deserves from that EEML controversy. In my experience he's clueful, easy to work with, and puts the good of the encyclopedia first.--ragesoss (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Essentially agree with comments by Ragesoss (talk · contribs), above. Also, contributor of twenty-six (26) Featured Articles to Wikipedia. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Those 26 featured articles is a popular myth. As you can see, only seven of them are still featured. They're many ages old, the most recent one in May 2009, (Polish culture during World War II). In other words, they're older than the EEML arbitration. Some of the 26 are just nominations, like Johannesburg, to which he only made a single edit ever [4]. Nanobear (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Support, experienced and clueful. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
13. Very strong Support even if I have no edit, as I just created an account to support him, I am a constant reader, I know Piotrus since 2007, he doesn't know me, I am from Italy. But I like the was he oppose the soviets. He must be a sysop. I like him. He needs to be admin. Adoptlesds (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    First edit is this comment here at RfA. I would suspect this account has been created purely to cause mischievousness, per second (and at time of writing, only other edit). [5]. Nick (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

14. Support I tried to wade through the EEML stuff and make sense of it but have given up. So what I'm left with is this. A very useful content editor and former admin is asking for the bits back. The unintelligible mess was three years ago. Several of the stronger opposes below were on the opposite side of that case which is perhaps leading to battleground below. Ignoring the battleground below, this seems like a reasonable request for adminship. Blade and Salvio strongly support this editor. Good enough for me. --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
15. Support The bottom line is that Wikipedia is about content. To produce and maintain content requires a large range of other activities as well. But, somebody who is as dedicated to producing content as Piotrus has been must also dedicated to Wikipedia, which makes me more comfortable allowing him to become an admin again. It is clear he has made mistakes in the past, but 3 years seems long enough to give him another chance. I believe that the experience he has together with the time since his previous mistakes greatly out weigh the possible risks.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
16. Support per S Marshall and others. My limited interactions with him have not always left the best impression, but he is a phenomenal worker who does lots of good stuff, & knows he will have lots of eyes on him in admin actions. The stuff he plans to concentrate on seems unlikely to raise issues. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
17. Support A solid content contributor. Learned a lot from reviewing his articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
18. Support as nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
19. Support. Brilliant user. The whole EEML affair is ancient history. Can now be re-trusted with the tools. That said, It's obvious that this RfA will not pass. Hadaway and shite, Giano.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
20. Moral support: valuable contributor, whom I believe has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
21. Support - I was originally going to !vote oppose, but three years is more than enough to forgive and forget, and his content work is outstanding; WP must be first and foremost a content-driven project, and I see nothing that suggests that Piotrus is anything but dedicated to this one goal.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
22. Support As an editor who was involved since 2005, I think I should comment here. Piotrus was a much better administrator than many people think. He was among the few administrators who handled these Eastern European conflicts in a state of neutrality when at the time, that subject matter was arguably the most hectic in the project. His tone has always been on the more aggressive side, as sadly shown in this RFA, but the type of editors he dealt with over the years made him a no-nonsense kind of editor, which isn't a bad trait for an admin per. He does outstanding work with the education program as well. Three years is more than enough time to forgive and forget. Secret ^account 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    Hello Secret, having read a lot of the old disputes over the time, I think you're quite mistaken about his previous role. His role has always been along national lines and the actual cause of most of the big disputes in the early topic area. For more information, check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus (this includes a summary of his admin role [6]), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2 (where he was warned for his misuse of his admin status, and that ruling was extra mild given the evidence). Nanobear (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

23. Support Strong content contributor, was previously an admin, wrongdoing was three years ago. I have no problems with this.→StaniStani  19:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
24. Support for the following reasons: we cannot in RfAs on the one hand say "no, too little content" and on another hand say "nope, too much content and dirty hands too." The problem is that it's impossible to edit here for a long period, writing consistently high quality content, without getting dirty hands - somehow or another. Some candidates are good at following a cookie cutter approach to RfA, doing only enough of one thing and enough of another to pass in a very clean vanilla sort of way that's frankly uninspiring for the "class" of admins we've created. I have respect for Giano and his oppose, but Piotrus' work and knowledge have put me here. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    I'm opposing for reasons I will explain below, but I'd have to largely agree with Truthkeeper's statement in general. --Rschen7754 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

25. Support. This is for several reasons. First, I think Piotrus deserves a serious credit because he did not stop editing after receiving sanctions, he contributed a lot, and he still wants to be an administrator. That kind of dedication to the project is commendable. Second, he never misused his administrative tools (whatever happened, that was not related to his administrative privileges). Hence I do not see any problem with giving him tools back. Finally, we have a serious problem with insufficient number of participants and admins, compare to the numbers of pages. This is because the plank for appointing someone an administrator is very high: we expect she/he be perfectly neutral and a good negotiator (few people have these qualities). However, very few administrators actually do negotiations or very active and decide important matters (e.g. on ANI or AE). I am sure that Piotrus will not be making any important decisions in EE area. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
26. Support people can definitely change. Piotrus looks like an amazing contributor who would not be a bad addition to the admin team. There can always be more eyes on the admin backlogs. Everybody deserbves a second chance. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
27. Support. Without meaning to show any disrespect here to the opposers who I'm sure have their reasons, above all this RFA is illustrating that we don't value experienced editors as administrators and give those which have contributed far more to the project a harsher time than those relative newbies who've done next to bugger all to improve wikipedia but have enough "brownie points" to be made an admin. The more experience you have on wikipedia the more likelihood you're going to encounter trouble, arguments and attract those who dislike you, which equates to more fodder for opposing, even if 99% of what they've done and said is great. It's become a battle ground for old grudges and disputes to resurface and a chance to make good editors feel dreadful for anything they've ever done on wikipedia less than perfect. RFA has become a sorry process, badly in need of reform, I dislike the way that genuinely good and experienced editors get trodden on here in favour of boy scouts. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

    Honestly, I agree with you in general about new, "box-ticking" editors to getting better treatment than experienced content editors, and that this is undesirable. But I take issue with the idea that this case is one of simply "encounter[ing] trouble, arguments and attract[ing] those who dislike you". This was a case of collusion with others to circumvent Wikipedia policy via secretive means. That's not just unpopularity; it's a honest-to-goodness record. In my case, that breach of trust was simply to great for me to trust with admin tools now and possibly ever. RFA does need to be made better, but I don't think this is a case of what's wrong with it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, as I said I can understand and respect your views on the matter that it was unforgivable. Me, I think it's harsh to base something which happened 4 years ago as the main reason to oppose somebody. One of the main problems I have with RFA is that the outlook generally exhibited by many here is that admin tools are somehow for life and that an admin can never be stripped of his tools. I'm more inclined to give editors a chance to prove their worth, and I think if an editor was made an admin that he'd be extra cautious to be less less combative and not breach any "rules" here which would probably be a good thing for everybody. I don't see a valid reason not to at least give him a trial run as an admin and if he is too "combative" down the line he can undergo an assessment later and be stripped of his tools. I just find the judgements here rather harsh in relation to overwhelming majority of positive work and activity they've put into wikipedia. Piotrus has always been a great project coordinator, I find it hard to believe he'd be a rogue admin and abuse everything all of the time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

28. Support. Seems to be a good candidate, and I trust that he will use the admin tools correctly. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 16:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
29. Support. Piotrus is not only a prolific contributor of quality content, but I've also found him to be professional and judicious in dealing with disputes and offering counsel. I have no doubt that he will be aboveboard in the application of admin tools in the future. Homunculus (duihua) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
30. Support. I've "known" Piotrus for a long time, largely from interactions at DYK. He's not perfect (none of us is!), but he's smart and insightful -- and someone I trust to do his best to the right thing. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
31. Support I'm a little hesitant as it's unlikely I'll have time for a thorough check of your contribs before the RfA closes, I don't know much about EE, and it may be that many of the opposess are well founded. On the other hand, I've seen a recent RfA where one of our most prolific and collegial editors was rejected with a similar %, and in that case I had sufficient knowledge of some of the issues opposers raised to be 100% confident they were spouting nonsense. Anyways, support per your impressive content building, and as from what little I've seen of you, you appear to be reasonable, honorable, and have good strength of character. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
32. Thanks for continuing under your current account after EEML rather than invoking cleanstart and having an uncontentious RFA after two or three years under a new account. ϢereSpielChequers 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
33. Support...giving candidate the benefit of the doubt.--MONGO 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
34. Moral Support. I'm undecided on anything other than that, but I want to acknowledge the terrific contributions that Piotrus has made - especially his support for new editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
35. I trust you. You'll be fine. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 20:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
36. Weak support Piotrus's positive contributions to the project are tremendous, and the EEML business is far enough in the past that I believe he has learned from his mistakes. I was very put off by his combative responses to some editors on this page, such that I wasn't sure he had the demeanor of a good administrator. It looks like he's cooled down, but presumably anyone can wear a smiley mask for a few days at RfA. Keep a cool head and try again in a few months. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
37. Support on the same rational as Ragesoss and S Marshall and Johnbod. I've known Piotrus since I came here. Some of our interactions have been very good, some less so. But he's an excellent editor, the admin tools are useful for anyone working extensively with classes, and I do not think he'd use them wrongly again. It's unfortunate that he's responded to the personal attacks on him by Giano, but it's clear where the fault lies on that, & perhaps its too much to expect anyone to remain quiet under such abuse. Had I not known Piotrus, I would still have supported, because I would have been very inclined to support anyone on the receiving end of such comments. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
38. Support Piotrus is one of the pillars of this project, it's as simple as that. He has his views, he used to be a tad trigger-happy every now and then back in my wikiaddiction days, but still. I can't think of many people who would deserve the broom and bucket more than him. And yes, I know of EEML, his content-related disputes with plenty of people and so on. The bottom line is: every decent editor who specialises in anything but hard science, is going to make more enemies than friends. It's as simple as that, been there, done that. In history or social sciences (which seem to be the two main focuses of Piotrus' work here) there is no God-given truth. What one person writes about, say, WWII, another will question and yet another will call the original author names because of that. That's how things are, people are and will disagree about what this or that articles look like. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't be given access to useful tools. Those are two completely different things. //Halibutt 01:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
39. Strong Support -- I don't think any but the young and foolish think no one ever makes a mistake. People also grow and change, and that too the young are blind too. Alas, aging will cure that all too soon. By shear numbers of quality edits alone this is the kind of editor which makes a great Admin. For years he's been helpful and supportive of others, and is far more valuable than the drones that run around mindlessly tagging stuff, running up edit counts without actually thinking about the implications of their so called contributions. I've disagreed with him a number of times, but he's always been ready to listen and consider the alternative viewpoint, discuss the differences and split the difference in a way leaving the matter... tasteworthy. No one ever is perfectly satisfied with a compromise, after all. Compromising with Piotr has been much better to swallow than most. His time investment in the project has been massive, he's been constant and always done his best for quality, however biased some may feel some things were twisted. Everyone has their politics, most are indoctrinated and puppets unaware of whose controlling their string. Piotr is not someone who could be duped that way. Wikipedia without people like Piotr would be a pale shadow of itself, not the reference of first resort it's become. It's become that because people like Piotr have set the bar, the challenge for others to meet and raised the average, the standard by which all are measured. Why is there the least doubt? // FrankB 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
40. Support as co-nominator, for the reasons detailed there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
41. Support net-positive. Agathoclea (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Per DGG, MONGO, Secret and WereSpielChequers. While I think that the candidate's behavior in this RfA, especially the idiocy surrounding playing the "Jew card", did far more to hurt him than just shutting up and sitting down would have, he would STILL make an excellent admin. Everyone makes mistakes. The biggest flaw in the RfA system is the tendency for oatmeal brained editors to see the oppose of someone they peripherally know and automatically jump on the bandwagon. I'm not saying that everyone does this, but it's amusing to look at people's histories and see that the time between their last edit and their oppose of an RfA is often no more than a few minutes. Really? You totally vetted out an RfA candidate, went over a significant sampling of their edits, read all the oppose and support rationales and did the homework to draw your own conclusions in a few minutes? There are obviously people far more talented than I am here, because it takes me about an hour for even the most uncontroversial candidate. Piotrus has his flaws, but after reading over everything that has been said in the last couple days, I don't feel that he would abuse the tools, and that his having them could only be a net positive. Everything else is just political posturing and schoolyard grudges. Trusilver 21:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
43. Support moved from neutral. Although my thoughts "down there" remain unchanged, I am convinced by the arguments of a number of editors I highly respect, and agree strongly with DGG's reasoning. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Strong Support -- Piotrus' great time, efforts, monumental contributions and numerous awards speak for themselves. Any 'faults' he may have pale in significance -- esp since most of his opponents here are no less 'guilty' of being human than he. Any other 'faults' he may have seem academic and highly opinionated and are obviously cited for personal reasons. I don't see anything done by Piotrus that has brought harm to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Again, his many contributions reveal him to be a friend to Wikipedia regardless of the confrontations he was involved with regarding a few other editors. --Gwillhickers (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
45. Support - per Giano. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - The user made mistakes in the past but prior to that was a decent and generally well respected admin. We need to give the user a chance and if they screw up again we can just remove the tools again. No big deal. Kumioko (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Vehement oppose Piotrus has proven that in order to achieve his goals, he will breach trust and break the most fundamental, honest and basic of Wikipedia's rules. Previously he has controlled a ring of socks and politically motivated editors to sway the balance of the project. Such behaviour taints the encyclopaedia and by association all our work. This deceit and corruption must never be allowed to happen again. I have seen no evidence of reform, and neither in Piotrus' case am I prepared to accept that a leopard has changed his spots. I rarely comment on an RFA, but I strongly feel this candidature is wrong.  Giano  13:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
   • You forgot to mention that I control The One Ring, too, and I am known to use it to mind control people; alas, you have valiantly resisted it and all my other attempts to warp your mind and will for years, always staying strong to your true beliefs. I also see that you are still as fond of WP:FORGIVE as ever; the length you go to promote our policies such as it or the old-fashined AGF always makes me look up at you in unmatched awe. Some people never change, you are completely right on the mark on that. I applaud you for finding this draft nomination even before it went public; perhaps you'd like to co-anti-nominate it? It is heartening to see there are still people who care about me that much. I mean, three years since I was involved in any of the ArbCom/ANI/etc. fun and games, yet there are still kind souls who apparently care so much about me to ensure your presence here (and hey, it's your only edit of the day - and you still chose to dedicate it to me; did I say already how touched I am?). Moving on, with deep regret, and much sadness, I have to point out that there may be a few minor errors in your well-reasoned and neutral argument above; particularly the comment about "he has controlled a ring of socks", it's so... sweet and thoughtful, alas, it is also, as much as it pains me to say, and forgive me for using the technical term here, an "outright lie". I consider your veno... er, I meant, vehement oppose a very nice contribution to this nomination, and I thank you for it. Yes, folks, years ago I made some enemies among Giano friends and apparently feature on his "friends-to-support-and-encourage-at-any-opportunity list". Cheers, Giano. I am sorry that I never ever returned the favor and commented on your person on Wikipedia ([7]); sadly, despite all of your efforts here, I don't think I can find time nor will to address this in the future outside of this forum, neither. I trust a few more ghosts of the years past will comment here, through sadly most of those well meaning, innocent souls, pillars of our community, did manage to get themselves blocked...? I can't wait to see who else will crawl out of the woodwork to join this party in the cooperative wiki-spirit of mending the fences and burying the hatchets :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC) PS. I have refactored this comment following Bishonnen's helpful remarks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   The following response is to Piotrus' original reply [8] which he has since modified, rather than struck. In which he implies I hate him because he is a Jew and that I wish him dead. He is a fantasist.  Giano  17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   This is not a draft - it is not in user space. Please don't muddy the waters with your religion and race, that means nothing here - this is purely about your integrity which is lacking. Neither is this a matter of you upsetting a few of my friends, unless 2/3rds of the encyclopaedia plus the Arbitration Committee are my close friends. Fundamentally, you abused the project for your own ends (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list). That is unacceptable. If you require an unseemly posting of diffs and questions, then I'm happy to oblige you, but I strongly advise you against it.  Giano  17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

   Uh, I linked EEML in my own comments, you are a bit too late to shock people with that. Have any diffs from this decade? Go ahead if you do, otherwise - I have better things than reminiscing about ancient wiki history. As much as some may enjoy it, I have Good Articles to write, DYKs to feature, about a month worth of backlog of articles to asses when New Article Bot gets kicking, and such. You know, encyclopedia building stuff. Personally I think it's more fun than discussing ancient wiki history and grinding axes, through to each their own - just don't expect I'll partake in this pastime of yours more than I have had in the past; not my piece of cake, through I appreciate your livening up the place. It's been a while since I've been to a circus. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Oh dear! This is rather like pulling the wings off a rather, large and unattractive moth. I will deal with you properly tomorrow when I have more time, but in the meantime, you might like to consider one of the lies from your statement above:“as soon as the case started, I recognized my errors and ceased any controversial activities”. Did you? Is that quite true? No, it's another lie, isn't it?. The case opened in September, the mailing list was still operating in November and you were still participating. It's tricky to prove because the evidence involved Radek (now newly reborn as Volunteer Marek (I expect he will support you above), and he accidentally copy-pasted his mailbox contents onto WP, which was quite rightly oversighted. However, let's allow the evidence section speak for itself: [9]. Are you sure you want to continue with this RFA? Then of course, we have your renowned 'back channeling' which served you so ill in that case [10] Piotrus, you are not a fit person to be an Admin, do we really need to continue this?  Giano  19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

   Really, is the best you can do is relitigate the past including your recent grossly uncivil and baseless accusations whose sole purpose can only be to foment continued antagonism? You don't seem concerned in the least that your deeming someone worthy of your personal attacks has become rather a badge of honor among Wikipedians seeking to build reputable content in a collegial atmosphere. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   All secret groups have their traitors and their double agents; it's the nature of the beast. You should remember that Vecrumba; you've already slipped on a banana skin once today [11] so I would remain silent if I were you.  Giano  20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   Sadly, double agents and banana skins are all in your self-consumed conspiracy-theorist head. Yet again your confidence in what you know is in error. What really puzzles me is why the community continues to put up with your poisonous innuendo as amply ladled out here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   P.S. Speaking of banana peels, I have your insulting Piotrus on his talk page to thank for finding his RfA. Thanks indeed! VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   *here is my 'insulting' of Piotrus to which Vecrumba (Piotrus' aide-de-campe) refers [12].  Giano  07:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Fact 1: Piotrus states above "While I have never in the past used the admin tools on anybody I considered involved with myself." This is blatantly false [13] he unblocked User:Molobo several times.  Giano  07:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   ....over seven years ago. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Fact 2: Piotrus asks for recent diffs proving his behaviour; he states above: “Since the case ended, now more then three years ago, I am proud to say, I was not involved in any wikidramu." However, only last week last posted his objections to a speedy deletion of one of his his students' articles in three places – asking for a review of an admin’s actions, calling them improper and an “abuse of admin tools” – by consensus, the speedy deletion was approved and the page userfied. [14] What would he have done if he had the tools. As an Admin, Piotrus would be divisive and arrogant.  Giano  07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Re: fact 1. Fair enough, I did so back when I was learning about being a Wikipedia admin in 2005. I agree that it was improper, I believe I have already conceded that way before the EEML case, too. I would certainly not do this now, nor did I do anything like that in the 4 or so years since that time while I still had the mop. Nice job digging out diffs that stale :)
   • Re: fact 2. I believe that posting objections to an admin action is an acceptable behavior. I don't do it often, perhaps 1/100 as often as you (care to dispute that?), but yes , I raised concerns in that case. The community did not share them as much, and I even gave the admin I was disagreeing with a wikibeer to reduce any wikistress :) Whether I became an admin or not, I believe that we all have the right to politely disagree. If I had admin tools, I'd do nothing different. Certainly I'd not wheel war, that'd be not conductive to the civil discussion we we were having there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I will leave this RFA for now and see how it goes. I have plenty more diffs up my sleeve displaying Piotrus' behaviour, but we will try to avoid a prolonged, unreadable thunder storm and leave them for now.  Giano  07:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Giano, your "Piotrus' aide-de-campe" accords Piotrus some sort of conniving credit when it is solely your sniping which attracted my attention. I admire your bold attempt to accord validity to your vituperations. Your notion that any two individuals who disagree with you comprise a conspiracy is the touchstone by which others should judge your participation and comments here. It's unfortunate that your provocations have gained traction in some quarters. You would not stand idly by when you feel WP is under assault, you consider yourself its protector; yet when I do not idly stand by, I am a conspirator. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
   
   Agree with Vecrumba: It seems that Giano, in his attempt to make Piotrus look like some sort of monster, has himself become the monster. Such a display of hypocrisy only exposes Giano's accusations to be greatly exaggerated in significance and personally motivated. This is most unfortunate as both Giano and Piotrus have made (very) many contributions to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose This April's fool joke comes three weeks late. Anyone with superficial knowledge of the current topic area knows that Piotrus has remained as close to other EEML members as before (just two examples with the most recent month [15] [16]). I also see he hasn't lost his infamous language, including his "wheedling tone". Unfortunately, the EEML arbitration was poorly researched, weakly ruled and only a small part of its evidence page and Wikileaks summary of quotes on Piotrus were used. In reality, as Thatcher wrote, Piotrus should have got permanently banned there.[17] Even a second leak later Arbcom stopped short of a permanent ban.[18]. Piotrus was never interested in admin work and confided on the EEML his own uselessness as an admin but argued that it helped in disputes. He, furthermore, engaged in widespread misuse of his rights and status.[19] Nanobear (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   Wikileaks? It's founder is hiding in an embassy.--Razionale (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   A thorough review of EEML (characterized as a majority of thousands having to do with a particular editor) demonstrates very little had anything to do with WP. This was mentioned at the case itself but it was not deemed necessary to correct the initial misinformation, allowing certain myths to live on. I am sorry to see you re-litigate the past. In which case I would have to ask, weren't you booted off of WP forever for personal attacks in the real world? You support forgiveness and moving on when it applies to yourself, but not others. I am genuinely sorry to see that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   Haven't heard of you since 2009, Nanobear. I am glad to see that this still-not-public RfA draft has given you a reason to edit Wikipedia for the first time in first days. What a coincidence that you stumbled upon it to reminiscent about the events from four years ago, through I see you also don't find WP:FORGIVE that helpful. Well, whatever the outcome of the events here, I still do. I see that other then 2009 diffs, you seem fit to complain that I occasionally interact, in a civil manner, with certain other editors. It's a free world - but if you find that disturbing, you can always try to get me and others under an interaction ban. I'd love to see how this would fly based on... what evidence of any wrongdoing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Why so angry? I think you've been calculating that this RfA fails anyway and that you'll just come back in one or two years, insisting that based on the passage of time everyone should be blind to your past leading to the previous RfA. Just like you advised the others on the EEML to do and just like you did in your repeated appeals after the case. Nanobear (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per reasonings given by Nanobear and Giano, with regret. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   I would respectfully suggest to not judge the request here based on the inimical and completely predictable peanut gallery so far (IMO) seeing this as an invitation to re-litigate the past via their personal narratives. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

   Would you mind telling me what "reasonings" do you see above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I made a bit of a mistake in my vote, so I am going to change to neutral below. Sorry if I have caused any confusion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose I know that he's an important editor, but some of this negative stuff (i.e. unplaeasant experiences, bans, edit conflicts) shouldn't even be mentioned in the nomination statement. It gives me the indication that his behaviour has been disruptive in the past, and it makes me worry that he would use the tools improperly. It's interesting about what he wants to do for his primary objective, as these requested moves can be indisputable, but still I think he's more prolific in the encyclopaedia department than in the admin department. Minima© (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I am not clear if you believe I and my nominator should have try to keep some controversies from few years ago hidden, or that they took place at all? If the former, I prefer to come clean and give the community and honest deal (which perhaps proves I am a bad politician, but I don't think this is an issue in a RfA). If the latter, you are of course entitled to a belief that people who erred once will err again. Setting aside the adage that to be human is to err, I respectfully disagree. Have you never seen or heard of anyone who was given such a chance and rewarded the trust given him? Isn't this the very guiding principle of our AGF policy? Granted, this is a philosophcal disagreement, as I am a strong believer in second chances (aka giving people enough rope... :D). But if my last three plus years of uncontroversial edit history is not enough, and you believe I'd be a danger to this project if given those tools, there's indeed little else I can do to change your mind, although I would be happy to answer any questions if you were to ask. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose. While I recognize he's been doing some good stuff and the EEML debacle was some time ago, encounters like this [20][21] still make me think he's easily tempted to sacrifice logic and reason in favour of some kneejerk reaction in defense of editors he perceives as political allies. The fact that the first two enthusiastic support votes here are from exactly two of these allies (part of the most faithful core group ever since the EEML days) doesn't help to overcome these concerns. On an entirely different matter, I was also not too impressed with his actions in a recent deletion case (AN, DRV), where his behaviour came across to me as pushy and wikilawyerish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry to say it but your own "kneejerk reaction" at ANI reverted by another sysop allows me to raise some reasonable doubts about your handling of that particular case also.[22] Poeticbent talk 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Well, let me then modify my "oppose" vote into a strongest oppose possible, if for no other reason than who his supporters are. If Piotrus needs members of his old POV coterie, such as Poeticbent here, haranguing oppose voters, and if they need to stoop as low as what we're seeing here (can't say whether out of malice or incompetence), then something must be seriously wrong with the candidate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Wait, let me get this right. Your primary reason for opposing me are the actions of others? As in, guilt by association? I am sure I must be misunderstanding you, and I apologize in advance. I am just not sure how to otherwise interpret your comment above; please help me understand it better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I think I made it quite clear what my primary reasons for opposing you are, and which are additional ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate on what makes you think my posts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin where "knee jerk reactions sacrificing logic and reason in defense of political allies"? I thought I provided valid if AGF arguments (yes, I am very fond of AGF). Nihil novi has not been proven to be a sock user, so given "innocent until proven guilty" I'd rather think my arguments and analysis where closer to the truth than not... Regarding "political ally", NN (who was not a party to EEML or any other arbcom case I can recall) is an editor I respect, but what kind of politics are we supposed to share, beyond that respect which I hope but will not presume is mutual?

   Also, I don't think it is very fair for you to hold me responsible for who votes here. For the record, I have not asked either Poeticbent nor Vrecumba to vote, nor informed them of this vote in any fashion. I have asked them now, however, to disclose how they learned about this vote, to address any conspira lingering doubts :)

   Regarding the DRV case, I have asked the other party there for comments on how he feels about my behavior, and I'll be happy to apologize to him if he feels offended. Other than this instance, would you have any other concerns about my attitude from the last three or so years? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Let me clarify regarding the SPI case: as you will have noticed, I quite agreed with you about the outcome, as far as exonerating NN was concerned. In doing so, I explicitly concurred with another argument brought forward in his favour by Marek. Marek, too, was of course a member of the old group, and may have had the same POV incentive to intervene as you did, but that didn't stop me from recognizing his argument as convincing. But here's the crucial difference: his argument was logically coherent and compelling; yours was not. He made the case that NN wasn't in fact the suspicious IP. You tried to make an argument based on the premise that they were the same, trying to excuse what, under that premise, really was unexcusable. This argument was so threadbare it really wasn't worthy of an editor of your intelligence; that's why I see it as a sign of a willingness on your part to sacrifice logic when an agenda stands in its way. You also didn't just defend NN, but also the IP (when I think it must have been quite clear to any experienced observer that the IP was a Serafin sock). You claimed the IP hadn't been disruptive, when in fact they had been making extremely inflammatory comments like [23][24]. As for you asking now why I would assume a political motivation on your part, I find it difficult not to see that question as disingenious: the SPI was triggered by a clash over one of the most long-running (and proverbially lame) national-ideological disputes Polish editors have been involved in for all these years; exactly the kind of dispute the EEML group was known for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for your clarification. I did indeed only skim the IP edits, and I was focusing primarily on the fact that he was not edit warring. I failed to consider the possibility that he was trolling the talk page, and provoking conflict, through I thought that if he would be so disruptive there he would've been already blocked by you or someone else. My primary focus was on analyzing the behavior of an editor I am more familiar with (Nihil novi) and explaining why any connection between him and the IP was unlikely; in that I did not pay sufficient attention to the actual content of IP's edits (I was primarily focused on NN's edits). Please note that I did agree with you and others that "Seraphin was a disruptive editor". Next time I'll be more careful with regards to declaring someone's talk page edits not disruptive, you are right I should've known better. That's one trout I certainly should be smacked with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose. While three years may be enough to forgive the EEML incident, he has continued to show a temperament unsuitable for an admin. I am also not sufficiently convinced that he will not use admin tools while involved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Would you mind describing in more detail which incidents did you find my temperament lacking and how, and what grounds do you have for assuming I'd use admin tools while involved? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   The diffs presented by Future Perfect do not inspire much confidence. It appears that you are still too quick to defend those who may be perceived to be your allies, which would make it difficult for you to make neutral admin actions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

6. Oppose per his comments at this dubious AN report and this subsequent DRV, plus general concerns about temperament and judgement. I do not think this candidate is suited to the role. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Would you mind telling me what about my comments has you concerned? Where I uncivil? For the record, following the concern over that ANI/DRV discussion raised by you and several others, I have asked the other party there (Deb) if he feels offended by my comments, and how he would vote ([25]). He replied that he would be neutral ([26]). Of course, you are certainly entitled to a different interpretation than him, I just wanted to let you know about Deb's views on this. Please let me know if you have any other concerns about my edits, I am always interested in bettering myself based on others' views of me. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   It's not the civility (or lack thereof) of the comments that bothers me. The fact that you raised the matter in the first place demonstrates poor judgement; pursuing it when you met with nothing but opposition demonstrated even poorer judgement, and trying to drag Deb into it and asking for a review of his "abuse" of administrative tools worst of all (whilst we're talking about Deb, I don't see what his opinion on the AN post has to do with my !vote here). And all in a week you were planning on filing an RfA? Add that to your badgering answers to pretty much all of the oppose votes (and even the neutral ones!) and I feel the net conclusion is that you lack the judgement, temperament and general streetwisdom every admin needs. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I just wanted to say that I appreciate your frankness and responding here in more detail. Detailed criticism like this is something I always value, and I will reflect on them in the months to come. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose (moving from neutral). The fact that he rarely responds on his own talk page (ca. 700 posts in all this time) is probably not an issue, but it does not make it easy to follow and evaluate his interaction with others. Piotrus is an excellent content contributor but appears to like too much getting involved in politik so there must be some reason why he attracts polemic. We have Wikiholics enough, we have Wikilawyers enough, and Piotrus has hats enough and enough to do without needing another one. A mature and highly qualified individual who is occasionally a tad too rash and garrulous, hence I am not wholly convinced of his ability to adopt and maintain the essential neutrality and coolness that is required of sysops. I never use qualifiers such as strong or weak in my RfA comments, but FWIW, this is borderline but sufficient for me to move from neutral. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for teaching me a new word for talkative. Yes, I am talkative, although I am not aware this discouraged in admins? Btw, I'd like to think it has been three, not two, years since any "major issues". Feel free to ask any questions if it would help with your investigation. Regarding your concerns over replying, I pride myself on replying to all non-automated messages I get. I do so however on sender's talk page, not mine, so I am sure the count of my edits to my own talkpage is low. I do not enjoy "politik" and I believe my content to Wikipedia namespace ratio should show it. My talk ratio may be high as one of my routine edits is article assessment. The reason why I attract polemic is simple: despite not liking "politik" very much, I've been here for almost 10 years, and I am I top 100 editors with most edits, so even if my ratio of "politik" edits is low, their total number is very high. Thus assuming I have a perfectly average toe-stepping ratio, I'd have nonetheless stepped on many more toes than vast majority of other editors. Therefore it would be surprising if I did not attract more polemic then most other editors :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

8. Weak oppose. (I should mention that Giano is an old friend of mine. We don't agree about everything, and he didn't canvas me about this RFA. I don't know any of the other opposers.) I started to type up a Neutral comment, because, while I thought there were some concerns about battleground with Piotrus, I wasn't opposed to adminship. We need more strong content contributors in the admin ranks. I also think he was mainly a good and useful admin in the past, and thought he would be useful now, and surely mindful of all the eyes that would be on his admin actions. I wish as many people watched all admin actions as would be watching Piotrus'! I still think this would be a protection against misuse, so this is not a strong oppose. But the way he threw himself gleefully into battling with the opposers on this page was too much for me. Piotrus, you're on display here, this is I presume your "best behaviour" that you're showing? Replying sarcastically to Giano isn't objectionable as such in my book—I'm not sensitive to that the way many people here are—but your tone and manner are. It's simply bad judgment to respond so aggressively (and at such length!), no matter how he framed his oppose. As far as that goes, the oppose was strong but matter-of-fact and not rude. Anyway, Giano isn't requesting adminship here, you are. Your broad hint that he had something to do with a racist attack and call for assassination is just utterly unseemly: "Btw, I wonder, is the attack page with my old address, calling me a Jew and asking for somebody to assassinate me still up at ED? Haven't checked it for years, but somehow I am reminded of it... can't think of the reason why." I couldn't believe it when I saw it. You could certainly help with many admin tasks, you're highly competent; but you've shot yourself in the foot with your demanour on this very page, as far as I'm concerned, sorry. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC).

   You make a good point that this comment went to far. It was not my intention to allege Giano authored that comment, but rather to note that I have been trolled with similar tone and friendliness in the past. I see however how I went to far with that reply, violating my own principle of utmost respect for AGF. I will refactor my statement to remove this unhelpful remark, and I apologize for making it in the first place. Thanks for calling me on it, I always welcome such well argued criticism that let's me improve for the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose I agree with King of Hearts' comments. I'm also about the neutrality of Piotrus' editing, and feel that at times he still edits to advance a Polish nationalist viewpoint at the expense of article quality. As examples of my concerns, please see my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish Underground State (particularly in relation to the neutrality of the article) and Talk:Polish mine detector#Requested move (without wanting to denigrate this Polish innovation from World War II, it's pretty obvious that the Poles aren't the only people to have designed mine-detecting technology, as the Demining#Detection methods link Piotrus wants to move the 'mine detector' redirect away from makes perfectly clear). I also note Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polish–Soviet War/archive1 from late 2011 in which Piotrus initially argued in favour of keeping this FA despite it suffering from some major, and fairly obvious, problems (though I note that he agreed with me when I pointed these out towards the end of the FAR in February 2012). All up, while I wish him well in his editing work, I'm afraid don't believe that Piotrus is a suitable person to hold the admin tools. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   While I would disagree with some of what you wrote, this is not a place to discuss content issues (although I'll briefly elaborate on one, the mine detector: I don't know much about mine detectors, and as the article is interwiki linked to the mine detector article on pl wiki, I thought that Polish mine detector = mine detector, hence I suggested the move; I certainly did not think that doing so could be seen as biased promotion of a Polish subject If I wanted to do so, wouldn't it make more sense for me to simply redirect the current mine detector redirect to the Polish mine detector article?). Anyway, I said many times I have a number of biases (Polish, Western, male, geek, etc.). So does anyone else, and for those of us who edit content this comes up every know and then. However... so what? There are no unbiased admins, because there are no unbiases people. Are you really holding against me the fact that I am an imperfect human being? :) Anyway, all I am saying is simply pointing out to this point in the NPOV policy FAQ "There's no such thing as objectivity". You are of course welcome to your own view, but personally I would never oppose anyone's admin candidacy due to their content views, as long as they would be otherwise civil and respect consensus. If you have any concerns about my civility and respect for consensus, please let me know about specific examples where I might have transgressed against those and related policies, and I'd be happy to analyze my behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   As a comment on this nomination, from re-reading WP:EEML it's pretty obvious that the nomination statement here whitewashes Piotrus' role - he wasn't merely "accused of abusing the tools in one instance" - this was found to have occurred, as well as a heap of other behaviour totally unbecoming of an admin, and if he hadn't resigned the tools it's a certainty that they would have been removed. I don't think that I've seen such blatant dishonesty in a RfA nomination statement before, and it's really disappointing that this has been posted. The fact that Piotrus endorsed this statement doesn't reflect well on him at all. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

10. Oppose. While I'm all for giving people second chances and can very well imagine Piotrus getting back the bit in some undetermined future, I cannot support at this time. The EEML fiasco alone was too big to forget easily; even four years later I keep seeing references to it every other week, if not more often. It is obviously fresh in many people's minds, and Piotrus has a strong association with it. I wasn't following Piotrus' activities closely in the past few years, but from what little I can see, he is on the right track. I wish him the best of luck. Time heals all, but in some cases a higher dosage is required.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2013; 11:55 (UTC)

    Always glad to see a familiar face! Regarding seeing the references to EEML, I personally see them only every two months or so, so I am a bit surprised you see them so often - you'd think that I, as one of the main parties there, would run into them more than you, who were not involved in this matter all. Anyway, regarding the frequency of mentions, you may find my answer to Kudpung ([27]) worth reading, as he is concerned about the similar issue. I'd also like to submit the following wikiessay of mine for your consideration. Regarding the time frame, I am curious how long the grave crime of EEML should prevent me, in your opinion, from being eligible to request the mop'n'bucket again. It has been three years, that's 25% of Wikipedia's history, or ~3.5% of current human lifespan in a developing country. How much longer would you feel would be fair? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Well, surely you understand this is not exact science we are talking about here. I don't know the answer to your question about how much longer would be fair, but I know that right now feels too soon, at least to me. When I look at the squabbles from the early days, they all make me smile and wonder how anyone could take them so seriously. When EEML reaches that point, and providing there are no new major catastrophes in the interim, you'll have my full support. In the meanwhile, treat this RfA as an opportunity to collect whatever constructive criticism you can find on this page. And thanks for the essay link; I'm looking forward to reading it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2013; 15:04 (UTC)

11. Oppose Having taken the time to look at bit more closely at the EEML matter and the user's role in it, it seems clear to me that Piotrus is not a good match for the sysop role. His interactions on this page likewise don't help his cause. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    If you would care to point out to more specific instances of my actions that you find lacking, I'd appreciate it. I try to improve myself based on comments of others, but I'd need more specific examples to analyze. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    I would have thought that "interaction on this page" was specific enough to indicate what I thought the problem is, but I will clarify. You don't have a positive attitude. You seem to feel compelled to answer every oppose vote here, not always constructively (see your replies to Giano, which are an example of what's not helpful to you or to the community here: Giano's not running for admin here, anytime soon or ever - there's no need for you to comment on him, you can simply answer his comments on your actions; to every diff from your time as administrator, you seem to point out how old it is, rather than how much you've changed since - your reply to my question above, in which I was seeking to understand if you had indeed changed since 2009 was hardly a good omen either, as it seems to me incredibly silly and petty to think that there's a COI because you're in some silly wikicompetition - which I believe featured 150+ users in the relevant year). Simply put, you seem to me not to have a positive attitude, not to know when something doesn't necessitate a reply, and that concerns about your actions and opinions from years ago are better assuaged by explaining how you've changed rather than pointing out that time has passed. We all can look at a date. We're trying to figure out if things have changed. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking time to clarify those issues. This is very valuable to me, particularly as I see major patterns emerging. Thanks to the comments such as yours I should be able to become a better Wikipedian! Cheers! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose - his comments/attitude at AN/ANI have left an ill feeling, I do not think he is suitable for the mop. GiantSnowman 12:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    If you would care to point out to more specific instances of my actions that you find lacking, I'd appreciate it. I try to improve myself based on comments of others, but I'd need more specific examples to analyze. If you are refering to the recent DRV/Korea-themed article, you may want to read my reply to Basalisk above. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    ANI is too big / I am too busy for me to bring out specific diffs. Others have already provided some, those should be enough. Furthermore, why are you responding to every single oppose !vote? That's the one thing I was advised not to do in my 1st RFA. Seems confrontational. GiantSnowman 16:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking time to reply. I thought that replying to people raising concerns would show my appreciation for their time. I now see that many disagree. Thank you for your advice, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    My advice? Do so after the RFA has finished. Seek input from those who have opposed you, guidance on where you can improve. GiantSnowman 16:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Major kudos for another useful piece of advice. In the days to come I will certainly seek input from many of the editors who are kindly taking their time commenting here. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

13. Oppose - I think the editor is overall fine, but he sometimes makes non-personal issues personal. For example, he appears to frequently poison the well as he did in his first response to Giano above. I don't think that is a good quality in an Admin. My own interactions with the editor, about an individual he appears to know professionally: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Laurence_Cox, also give me significant concern about his ability to detach private interests from wikipedia issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    IMO, Giano's presence here (judging by his comments to me) is intended to inflame and provoke. I don't believe one should simply roll over in the face of less than collegial behavior. There has been far too much indulgence of incivility. I would only suggest that you not conflate Giano's objections with any personal concerns you have yourself and for which you would like to request the perspective of the RfA applicant. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    It's not what Giano said that concerns me (to clarify, it's what Poitrus said that matters) , and I don't care or know that much about EEML related stuff. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

14. Oppose. Like some of the other opposers, my impression of his behavior here and on AN/ANI is that his temperament isn't such that a mop is a good idea right now. "Giving as good as you get" in heated situations is not a valid solution to any problem, whether technical or social. I was also distinctly unimpressed to see him castigating Deb in multiple venues for Deb's speedy of a textbook G11 article, and my confidence is thus low that Piotrus could handle deletions well and according to policy, especially when they relate to his work in the Education Program. I would also note that while Piotrus acknowledges one of his EEML-related problems to have been canvassing, he seems to not have grokked how to avoid the issue even this week. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC) last edited 14:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Regarding the ANI/DRV issue, please see my comment to Basalisk above where I mention Deb's own thoughts on our discussion in the view of my suitability for an admin. Regarding grokking things, Wikipedia:Ambassador talk page, unlike EEML, a public forum, and I see mentioning the educational-project-related deletion discussion there as valid as would be listing it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting outlet such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Education. As there is no avenue to do so for speedy deletions or DRVs, I used the talk page. If you still think that I did something wrong, I'd welcome assistance in understanding the issue, particularly how what I did would differ from linking a regular AfD in an appropriate Deletion sorting venue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Having read your response to Basalisk, I can only say that no, being told Deb's hyopthetical vote in this RFA does not resolve my concerns about your temperament - my issues are with your choices and aggression in pursuing them, not with Deb's susceptibility to or resistance to offense or grudge-holding. As far as the canvassing issue, I would have expected you to be aware that in a situation where you were aggressively pursuing your preferred outcome in the DRV and you had already pursued that in multiple, more neutral venues, you would be aware that contacting a group who specialize in assisting and, in some cases, protecting students' edits would be equal to contacting a non-neutral cross-section of the community ("recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group," as WP:CANVASS puts it). I can willingly accept that you didn't believe that your message was canvassing, and that it may be a debatable case of was-it-or-wasn't-it canvassing, but that leaves the issue of you taking an action that's, to be generous, alarmingly close to canvassing when you have a history of misusing canvassing to have your way in disputes. I would expect editors who have had trouble in the past with a policy to be more careful in being sure to follow it, rather than taking chances and hoping they come in under the line.

    You don't have to agree with any of my comments here, or anyone else's, of course, but might I humbly suggest that you take a break from challenging the thoughts of every person who has opposed you? Consider the possibility that some people may be making valid points that bear your thinking about, whether this RFA passes or fails, and that acting as though each oppose is a evidence-lacking direct personal challenge to you may be making you look oversensitive. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    You raise a number of valid points. Aaargh, canvassing is really my Achilles heel. I thought that if I post in a public forum, in a neutral fashion, it would be fine, but you are totally right that the partisanship of the audience is a factor, too. My rule of thumb tends to be "is this edit similar to linking something in DELSORT", but if I understand you correctly are saying that ambassadors would be more partisan than wikiproject members yes? We are not supposed to protect the student edits any more than any other type of edits, but I see your logic. Perhaps the correct course of action for me would have been to link this discussion there after the DRV was closed, to avoid any interference (not that I think a single ambassador participated anyway...)? Regarding replying to people here, well, I do so as a mark of thanks and respect for people who chose to spend their time considering my request. I also like to understand what others think of me, so I can either clear up any misunderstandings, or better myself in light of their constructive comments. If some take it the wrong way and believe I am overly defensive or aggressive... well, my usual responce would be to try to clear this misunderstanding through explaining to them this is not the case, which... hmmm... I kind of see a problem here :> Would you suggest that I should've made no replies to the comments here whatsoever, outside replying to the questions to candidate? I am not sure what is the common practice in RfAs, perhaps I should've looked at what are the standard practices. Too late now, I guess, the proverbial cat is way out of the box on this one here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Admin work is all about looking at the standard practices. If there is no substance to an oppose, there is no need to reply. In a close vote, a bureaucrat will look carefully at the arguments; if it's not close, nothing you do will make much difference. If you had not replied to Giano, I would have been inclined to assume the problem is with him, not you. Many of the opposes are probably responding to issues that have already been discussed on this page, so it's unlikely they will provide more detail. I hope, after this is over, that you will take comfort in knowing that you are highly respected for your contributions to content. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for the valuable comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    To add, I didn't look at EEML and wasn't going to base any opinion on it. My neutral could have gone either way. What forced me into this column was your inability to just accept criticism without picking it apart. You are going to get criticized as an admin. A lot. Sometimes, you have to just walk away, even when you know you are 100 percent right. I have to bite my tongue many times a day here, it is just part of the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    That's for sure. Some editors have the tall poppy syndrome and look for opportunities to attack admins. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

15. Oppose . Thanks for offering to do all those tedious tasks you listed in Q1. For that, I'd like to have supported. But the confrontational reply to Giano is unacceptable, and that whole business of Beautiful Store, wasting countless hours of editor time and trying to get Deb reviewed and cautioned, make my support impossible, I'm afraid. --Stfg (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Regarding the ANI/DRV issue, please see my comment to Basalisk above where I mention Deb's own thoughts on our discussion in the view of my suitability for an admin. Regarding my reply to Giano, please see my reply to Bishonen above (yes, I agree it was inappropriate, and I have refactored my comment and apologized for it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with every word of Basalisk's reply. Deb's reply is gracious, but s/he doesn't go as far as to support, and it doesn't change my view of the AN (nor my comment today at the DRV). Regarding your reply to Giano, I applaud your acceptance of the criticsm, but unfortunately what's done is done, and it's now difficult to believe there wouldn't be further drama in future. I also agree with those who disapprove of your replying to nearly everyone in the opposes and neutrals. I accept your explanation of it, but asking people to amplify their comments can appear (and does, to me) like putting them on the spot. Best, --Stfg (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for the valuable comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose The reply to Giano made this oppose easy. If the candidate can't stay cool here, why should I assume that the candidate would do so in an admin position? Intothatdarkness 13:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Striking my vote. Did some additional digging, and I won't base a vote on the squabbles of others. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

16. Oppose The first sentence of the candidate's answer to Q7 troubles me; adminship is about trust, and I'm not sure how well lessons have been learned. Miniapolis 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    I have left a small clarification in Q7 answer. I am not sure I understand your concerns. Are you concerned that I am concerned about my privacy, or that I have private correspondence with others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for the clarification. While I was ready to support for no other reason than your willingness to tackle a large backlog, the EEML was a particularly bitter issue and your engagement with most (if not all) opposers is not grounds for confidence. Admin skills (and even judgment) are learned; however, you're either levelheaded or you're not. Please take legitmate concerns to heart. All the best, Miniapolis 19:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for the valuable comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

17. Oppose a great content contributor at WikiProject Poland, but unsuitable as an admin. Too divisisve and partisan. Also still indulges in nationalist tag-team editing along the old battlelines.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Ah, a fellow EEML soul, glad to see another friendly face. Say, Miacek, speaking as one former EEMLer to another, would you mind pointing to me where is it exactly that I have been engaging in that "nationalist tag-team editing along the old battlelines"? A link to AN(I), AN3RR or AE in which they are discussed would be very appreciated, somehow I must have missed them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    The edit war at National Democracy is an example.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

18. Oppose per Giano and the subsequent virulant badgering by the candidate and his aide. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose, what Piotrus did is one of the few things I would consider a potential candidate for WP:NOTEVER. EEML may be over three years in the past, but for this sort of offence, three years is not enough, and I'm far from certain I will ever be ready to trust at the level of adminship again. Nor is good content contribution enough. Even without the comments to Giano, this would be a solid oppose for me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    "what Piotrus did". Since I have done many, many things, would you mind to be a tad more specific? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    I kind of thought that would be clear, given the proximity of my reference to EEML, but I guess not. I was referring to the participation in the Eastern Europe mailing list. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

20. Oppose. As Peridon notes below, this RfA is rapidly turning into a circus, and I can't help but think that the tone of some of the candidate's responses on this very page has helped to propagate at least some of that. That's not a characteristic that sits well in an administrator, so I must oppose. Excellent content contributions, mind. — sparklism ^hey! 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
21. Very Strong Oppose I came here to oppose due to the Beautiful Store DRV, where Piotrus fights tooth and nail to get a very spammy page written by one of his own students undeleted for some reason. He does admit this in his statement so it isn't a disclosure issue, but it's still abysmal judgement that suggests to me Piotrus is absolutely unfit for any position of power and needs to be kept well away from deletion tools. Then I read the discussion and Piotrus' badgering of oppose voters (and the neautral voters too!) turned my oppose into a very strong oppose. In my opnion this is one of a very small number of editors I would never trust with admin tools. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose- While I respect the views of those supporting this nomination, including a couple very trusted faces at WP, I really, really, really dislike the badgering of opponents by the nominee, which I feel is unbecoming of an administrator. Some of us are better suited to writing and voicing opinions, others to administrative functions. I feel certain that this nominee, like me and many more, is better suited to the former than the latter. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    While my views on the fundamental question are unchanged, moving to neutral out of respect for an excellent editor. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

22. Oppose Per all of the above. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 18:27, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose WP:ROPE is something to be applied to spammers and vandals, not admins. I see no benefit from giving Piotrus any more rope; he's hanged himself quite well enough with his responses on this page. I neither trust him to be able to resolve controversy, nor to stay away from it. If he wants to work on maintenance backlogs, I'm sure he can find plenty that don't require any special buttons. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
24. Oppose I can't trust someone with the tools that is already being uncivil to editors that have a different opinion than him (e.g. the opposers). It is completely inappropriate. I haven't looked over the case (which is my next click), but its obvious to me that Piotrus still has conduct problems. MaskedHero (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    Indented. I'm afraid that only logged-in editors get to vote at RFA.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

    My appologies forgot to login. MaskedHero (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

25. Oppose (moved from neutral) per badgering. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose - Piotrus is a great content contributor, but his attitude, level of civility, and previous issues truly worry me about giving him a new chance with the tools. That, combined with the compelling arguments presented above, makes me feel that I must oppose at this time. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
27. Oppose - I do not like his conduct on this page. It is unnecessary to respond to every oppose and I don't like the tone of these replies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose (moved from neutral) per WP:BLUDGEON and my points below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose - I am all for forgiving past mistakes, however even looking past the whole EEML affair I still am uncomfortable supporting given the conduct I have observed, especially here. Administrators bear the brunt of a lot on Wikipedia, and they need to be cool, calm and collected, even in the face of difficult situations. It does not seem like the candidate possesses these qualities, which gives me concerns about his suitability to be an administrator and I must oppose as a result. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    Moved to support above. Oppose - This editor's behavior in this RfA has been horrific. That alone shows me he is unable to withstand the stresses of adminship. That aside, he is going to need to rent a backhoe to bury as many hatchets as he has that require burying. Trusilver 00:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

30. Oppose - Interpersonal style seems highly problematic; admins should be resolving conflicts, not participating in them. And if he can't or won't even put a good face on during the RFA, it seems he either can't or won't "get" what the problem is. Kobnach (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
31. Oppose - per behavior here, and the rather devious behavior before the RfA was officially listed. Those who have been desysoped must have even cleaner hands than normal, and that doesn't seem to the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
32. Oppose - useful editor, yes, but he doesn't have the right temperament needed to execute the duties of an administrator properly. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
33. I think you've made the same fatal mistake I have made, and to be honest, the verbosity isn't an attractive trait when considering admin suitability. Trust me on that! My76Strat (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
34. Oppose Let's pretend for a moment that EEML was not a recent, massive and serious breach of the community's trust. The candidate make some good edits, many of them in hotspots of the project. I'm not sure if it's linguistic, but their "conversations" often come across as unnecessarily brusque and hostile, often "tempered" with badgering - I don't think I need to provide wikilinks as it's incredibly evident in this very RFA. I have also seen some actions on AN/ANI just this past week involving Piotrus that a past admin or a wannabe admin should already know the answer/correct process for. So, even if EEML didn't exist, there are too many reasons to say "no" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

    Oh, the irony. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

35. Oppose per above. Some comments that were raised concerns this user's behavior and 'uncivility'. Although he's good and useful in some areas like his contributions in Poland related articles or so. Still, I oppose per all above. Mediran (t • c) 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
36. Oppose - Per above. Arctic Kangaroo 14:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
37. Oppose Echoing those above - there's some concerning behaviour here. Even just the many oppose responses above give me pause. m.o.p 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
38. Oppose No thanks. Evidence presented above shows me that giving the candidate the tools would not be a net gain for Wikipedia in 2023, let alone 2013. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
39. Oppose The candidate was the coordinator of the WP:EEML incident. As such, it is too egregious for me to trust the candidate in a professional capacity with administrative tools.Curb Chain (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
40. I'm sorry Piotrus, but as great a content contributor as you are, there is absolutely no way I could ever even conceive of supporting you for adminship after the mailing list debacle in 2009. That was such a systematic gaming of the system, in which you yourself presided over, that it permanently cost you my trust. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

    I say these things, by the way, as someone who generally agrees with Piotrus on most things. I completely supported lifting the sanctions against Molobo, and I admire his willingness to give others a second chance. I cast this vote before I even read the other opposes because I knew the EEML would preclude a support from me, if not forever, then for quite a long while. I was around back then, I remember that case well, and I was shocked at all the revelations that came to light. Reading through the comments above convinces me that Piotrus might not have the temperament for adminship to begin with. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

41. Oppose One need not hold a grudge based on your past mistakes, your behavior at this RFA is more than enough to firmly convince me you should not be an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
42. Oppose'. I was going to support based on my own interactions with Piotrus even after I saw that the count was going nowhere, but the persistent badgering in an RfA is just too much. Frankly, I don't get it at all. If this were a serious effort one would have expected a much less belligerent way to answer (some of) them--I can only conclude that this was not a serious effort. That's OR on my part, I suppose, but whatever his other merits are, this is not what one should expect from an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
43. Oppose basically per Drmies - the badgering is concerning. Making mistakes in the past is one thing, but badgering the opposers now doesn't encourage me to overlook those mistakes. --Rschen7754 06:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
44. Strong Oppose I was initially leaning toward neutral or a light oppose, because while I believe that people can change, when someone breaches the trust as severely as was done with the EEML incident, I have a hard time wanting to give that person a position of power again. But upon reading the responses to the first dozen-or-so opposes, it's absolutely clear that Piotrus should not be trusted with the admin tools again. He is far too antagonistic. Considering his past, he should be approaching this RFA in the nicest attitude possible, and he did the complete opposite. I understand some people get defensive, but his responses (and the seeming need to keep replying and digging a deeper hole) show that there is a severe lack of judgment. In no way could I ever support Piotrus being an admin. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose; i came here originally when i saw Piotrus' name at RfA to oppose on the basis of the EEML, which i thought i remembered his involvement in. Then i decided that wouldn't be good practice, so took a look. Partly based on the nomination statement, partly on the co-nominator whom i respect, and moreso based on Piotrus' more recent activities and my fundamental believe that people can change, i almost ended up under Support. Unfortunately, i have to drop here in the end, based almost completely on Piotrus' continual replies and justifications and hectoring of the opposes. While some of them are doubtless personal and painful and, to my mind overly vehement not to say vitriolic, his reactions do not give me confidence that he will accept questioning over administrator actions. (Now that i've been wordy, i see i could have just said, "Per Drmies"; sorry.) Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Moving to neutral

45. Oppose. Piotrus is an excellent editor. He made mistakes in 2009. However he has admitted his mistakes and learnt from the process. He edits Wikipedia in good faith and I believe that he is open about collaboration with other editors. Initially I was about to support. However his extended retort to Giano worries me, especially the sarcasm. The fact that Piotrus seems to have been riled so easily shows that he is unsuitable as an administrator, where discussions about admin actions can become heated. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

    His response is perfectly human and normal considering what was said. Personally I;d rather an admin to be a normal human being than some bot-like civility model who licks everybody's asses.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

46. Big oppose - I have great concern over this person's lack of apparent maturity in dealing with other users. That said, best of luck to him in his RfA. -T.I.M^(Contact) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
47. Oppose Leaving aside the EEML problem which I am admittedly not happy with, this user's interractions with other editors, as demonstrated for example in this RfA, cause me to doubt that he has the temperament to deal impartially with the admin tasks which he will, if promoted, inevitably be faced with.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
48. Oppose Some very valid concerns have been pointed out above. TBrandley (T • C • B) 22:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
49. Oppose Candidate seems to feel some sort of need to respond to nearly every comment. That sort of behavior creates drama (the kind we are seeing in this RfA) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
50. Oppose Probably best for the candidate to continue their fantastic contributions to the project without the admin flag Jebus989^✰ 00:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but the custom has always been for an editor in this position to leave the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    Piotrus didn't leave after he was rebuked by ArbCom, so why should he leave now? Kraxler (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

51. Oppose - Candidate's behavior during this Rfa speaks for itself. Suggest the fiasco be mercifully closed via WP:SNOW as soon as possible. Jusdafax 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
52. Oppose I agree with Jusdafax. - Camyoung54 ^talk 02:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
53. Oppose I've met Piotr in real life and I really cannot say that I have any issue with him. That being said, I would have to agree with Drmies here in that I was willing to support this, or at least be neutral after reading the opposes. Disagreeing over something is one thing, but badgering each and every vote until it is pointed out is not something that makes sense at the end of the day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
54. Oppose, due to his involvement in the EEML case, and his penchant for badgering, as shown at the top of this oppose section. That said, you don't need the admin tools to make useful contributions and I hope that Piotrus continues to make useful contributions regardless of the outcome of this RFA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

    The tools are really, really useful for content creators, and you should not assume that they are not needed to make a useful contribution. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    Of course they aren't! I assume you're not saying that we ordinary mortals without mops can't make a useful contribution? :) --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    No, I am not saying that, although many prefer not to :D

    Well, the tools are obviously helpful, I'd not have applied for them for myself otherwise. But Piotrus can and does make useful contribs without the benefit of the tools, and I hope that they continue to do so regardless of the outcome of this RFA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

    I don't think that he does, and I think that people that vote oppose and then say that they hope that he can somehow find a way to contribute are being self-deceptive at best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    I must be misunderstanding you. What I see here is everyone saying he makes great contributions. People aren't saying "hope he finds a way", they're saying "hope he continues". --Stfg (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    I'd like to aver that the tools are absolutely unneccessary to create content. I've created more than one thousand articles without the tools. The tools are really good for "housekeeping"... Kraxler (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

55. Oppose per Jusdafax, Lankiveil etc. Furthermore, the EEML affair may seem like 'ancient history' to some but it involved a staggering failure of judgement. I hope the candidate will continue to contribute quality content but this nomination is, quite apart from the particulars, too early for me. Ben MacDui 11:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
56. Oppose - per disingenuous advertising of this RFA while asking about whether advertising an RFA is okay. (Yes, this is my first edit; crats feel free to disregard this !vote if you find it inappropriate). Anyone wanting to be an admin, particularly someone who has already been an admin (and desysopped...), should know this. Plus EEML obvs. The Potato Hose (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
57. Oppose - per Dennis and Drmies; I respect the content creation, but the behavior in this RFA concerns me...a lot. Go Phightins! 19:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
58. Pile on oppose I was going to refrain from making a comment, but if the candidate chooses to finish out the week despite strong opposition, then he apparently wants to see how bad it can get, so here I am. Drmies describes my position the best. Despite the candidate's controversial background which can on the one hand be forgiven and on the other condemned, the candidate's reactions to the initial opposes is enough to oppose on it's own. I see in GiantSnoman's oppose that the candidate suggested that responding is some show of respect for the oppose. I would hope that a prior admin would recognize it for what it is: badgering. Then the repeated insistence that the first dozen opposes support their rationals with diffs or examples, despite that each previous one was able to successfully support their position, gives me the idea that the candidate is just not aware of their own shortcomings even after it's pointed out. Despite positive interactions with this editor, they need an entirely different approach and attitude if they ever plan to be an administrator again. And that's if EEML were entirely to be ignored.--v/r - TP 20:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
59. Oppose - I appreciate his contributions to content. But the issues described amply above concern me. Especially the behavioral ones.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    Weakly Oppose This user has almost 9 years on Wikipedia, which is great and having experience, et, etc. However, this user appears to have a long block log, which also consists of 2-3 month bans, and a long history of breaking the policies/guidelines. Now, the block log isn't my only rationale, considering that many constructive editors, including myself, have been foolish and have been blocked before. The issue is the quantity. I and many other constructive editors have only had one block for up to one week, he has had numerous blocks and bans for up to 3 months. I bet that he might be a good admin one day (like me, hopefully), but per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, I think he should not be an admin [yet] and possibly wait and see if he can earn some more trust back from the community. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 21:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Striking my Vote, while I "research"

60. Oppose - Good editor, but the concerns raised above, along with his behavior here is quite a bother. ZappaOMati 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
61. Oppose - I haven't read much on this RfA page, but (as usual) I stumbled upon it from the Education noticeboard and the DRV of Piotrus's student's page (linked to from there). The behavior there and here - badgering and sarcastic - don't bode well. Ansh666 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC) (p.s. it's almost as badgering as this!)
62. Oppose. Piotrus has been known to push his anti-Russian POV by hook or by crook, ousting from the English Wikipedia all prolific Russophone contributors. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
63. Oppose Behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose I'm not familiar with this editor, so I don't know the "who's right?" and "who's wrong?" of the evidenced protracted editor disputes here. But the form of the responses to opposes here, no matter their underlying history, is not really compatible with what the project needs from an admin. I'm not bothered by old blocks, etc., and I mean no disrespect to this editor's no doubt excellent content contributions, but I worry that granting a bit here will generate serious drama. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) After reading the last year of this editor's talk page archives, I'm moving to 'neutral. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

64. I have a great deal of respect for Piotrus as an article writer. Beyond that, everyone keeps talking about article people being admins, and why we don't just give them the bit. This is why. Yes, he's a great writer, but he's also confrontational and has a lot of baggage that I'm unconvinced is fully in the past, especially after reading through the RfA. Almost went neutral here, but since I'm not in the "admins must be article writers" camp, that pro isn't a big deal to me anyway. Wizardman 04:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
65. Strong oppose per all above. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
66. Oppose. Piotrus is, as a matter of fact, regularly involved in wikidramu. It is the mark of a skilled wikidramist not to escalate such wikidramu to Arvcom. Nonetheless, Piotrus is a reliable ally of tendentious editors in the EEML field and related Russophobic, anti-Communist, nationalistic projects. See also: Fut.perf's oppose. Shrigley (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Though I respect Piotr's contributions from the very beginning (I worked on Tadeusz Kosciuszko with him and am currently working on Frederic Chopin with him), I am a little concerned that he would get involved in some issues again if he becomes an administrator like asking others to be involved in some major content dispute or get involved in EEML where I fear that I would be topic banned from it and I don't want that to happen to me. Other than that, I am mostly comfortable with Piotrus returning as an administrator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for raising valid concerns. You say that I may "ask others to be involved in some major content dispute". Well, yes, I may do so and in fact I have been doing every few months. I believe that there is nothing wrong with administrators (or any other editors) using tools like Wikipedia:Requests for comment? I believe that right now there is one RfC started by me: Talk:Campaign_finance#Merge_from_Political_finance; if anybody finds anything inappropriate about it please don't hesitate to point it out (I'd list past RfCs I started but I am not familiar with a tool that would give me a list of them; if anyone knows I'd be glad to learn of it). Now, you also say that you are afraid that I would ask others to "get involved in EEML where I fear that I would be topic banned". No worries there; I wouldn't ask anyone to join EEML. First, I am no longer a member of that particular private listerv (nor, for conspiracy theory and wikilawyering buffs, of any hypothetical descendant or fork of it). Nor am I a member of any other private listserv concerned with Wikipedia - the EEML case clearly showed that being a member of any private Wikipedia-themed listerv is an unhealthy idea. Let me disclose, however, just in case anybody wonders, that I am a member of numerous public Wikipedia-themed listervs, like wikipedia-research-l @ wikimedia.org and education @ wikimedia.org (and I have invited people to join those on occasion). I hope, again, that this is not a problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to 'oppose')- garrulous responses and a history (although two years since major issues - but we are dealing with a re-adminship here) that gives me pause. Neutral for now while I find time to examine things more closely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral for the moment at least. Never heard of EEML or listervs before, so I've learned something today. Otherwise, trying to decide if this is an RfA, a circus, or a gladiatorial arena. Peridon (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Those are not mutually exclusive. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral as I don't see a need to pile on at this point. Moved to oppose - I can look past issues from two years ago, but looking back through a sprinkling of contribs, I don't think Piotrus's demeanor is suited to be an admin in the current environment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Would you mind telling me which of my contribs suggest an admin-unbecoming deamenor? I like to know what I did wrong so that I can better myself in the future, but for that I do need a bit more precise data than a "sprinkling of contribs". Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Reviewing your replies on this page, as well as a reasonable number of your contribs over the last 6 months, I see a sometimes combative demeanor that I think is incompatible with adminship. I'm not inclined to list or debate them individually as I don't think it will be helpful for you, myself or the process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I think EEML was badly argued and poorly decided, but the background in that case clearly informs how Piotrus would conduct himself as an admin - and, from that standpoint, EEML is obviously a concern, and perhaps one that will ultimately sink this RFA. But look, you assholes editors complain and complain that we don't get candidates who contribute content. Well here you go, here's an editor who has edited prolifically in the article space - 20+ FAs, 50+ GAs, 500+ DYKs, more than 73,000 articlespace edits, etc etc etc. If content is king, then Piotrus will be an admin in 7 days. Obviously, it is more complex than that, but I thought it worth commenting on the issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   "You assholes"? Seriously? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Speaking purely about this remark, this is not a language nor attitude I endorse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   I went a bit overboard there, and have withdrawn the comment (with my apologies to the candidate). But my point stands, I think - Piotrus has outstanding content work, to his great credit. And if RFA were just about content, as some have claimed in the past, it would be an easy Support. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral per Dennis Brown. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 13:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC) moved to oppose

   Neutral...but want to thank you for your prolific and excellent contribtions in article space.--MONGO 14:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Since a neutral vote implies you found something to be concerned about, may I ask you what it is? I like to know what I did wrong so that I can better myself in the future, but for that I do need a bit more precise data. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   The loud opposition didn't sway me because the noise was too great to read the signal. The 3 years since the major dustup is more than sufficient time for some of the more vocal opposers to get over it. I was almost run off this website by one editor that was banned, but when he was allowed to return and then when he ran for admin, I didn't even participate. I really don't know why some think they have to carry a grudge forever. I may switch to support for whatever that's worth.--MONGO 16:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for taking time to answer. If you don't feel strongly about this, you are certainly welcome to stay neutral, I am was just trying to understand your reasons. Once again, thanks for taking time to participate and comment, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

4. Editors can change, the reasons to grant Piotrus the mop are solid, and I'm strongly inclined to discount some of the opposes. But this still doesn't sit easy with me. After pretty much self-torpedoing his own RfA with his early responses to the watchlist opposes, Piotrus has done very well to keep cool and has hopefully onboarded what the community outside of the old drama has made of it. Continue to demonstrate that and the non-historical reasons to oppose a mopping will dry up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
5. Neutral: Three years is a long time, more than a term in the United States House of Representatives. Content contribution is important, and not having any interaction (that I am aware of) with the subject of this RfA, I am unaware of any negative actions from the subject of this AfD since his/her return after the block. That being said I have to agree with some of what has been said above, due to the nature of some of the responses to the initial opposes I am now hesitant to support elevation of the former administrator back to administrator status. Perhaps this should be tried in another year, see if this improves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Neutral For some reason I cannot figure out why I had this RFA on my watchlist when it was a red-link. I've very rarely done so with out a strong (usually oppose) reason and so I will spend a bit of time tomorrow uncovering this mystery. Mkdw^talk 09:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

   I did a little digging around and only came across [28] where Piotrus has either implied inherent notability because religions are generally big if they have churches or that all churches are notable because they're churches -- which struck me as odd for such an experienced admin. Surely I wouldn't have watchlisted over that... Other than that it baffles me. Piotrus probably doesn't remember but we worked successfully on the History of Solidarity during the FA nomination back in the day. I still patrol that page from time to time. Looks like I'll have to review the full RFA tomorrow. Mkdw^talk 10:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

   Going to stay neutral on this one. I really hope this editor applies again for adminship in the future. I thoroughly dislike some of the oppose comments, but I see valid arguments from the support and oppose camps. It's a lot of material to sort through in an RFA since other people's evidence brought forward can be as important as the RFA questions. So much so that I'd feel uncomfortable making a solid decision. Mkdw^talk 08:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral Oustanding editorial work and policy knowledge counterbalanced by interpersonal issues. Even though some of the opposes are unkind, candidate must know they will never be more in the public eye than at RfA, and I am concerned (though not scared) about civility issues. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Neutral I was leaning towards support but the responses to some of your opposition raised a few concerns, not enough to outright oppose your nomination but enough that I am a little wary of supporting the nomination. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
8. To avoid piling on. The responses to the opposes above are deeply concerning. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Neutral I appreciate the candidate's content creation but I'm really concerned with the way the Opposers are questioned. Admins regularly take flak, whether undeserved or deserved, and has to really be cool about the whole thing. I think the editor has still much to learn about handling criticisms.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral This user has almost 9 years on Wikipedia, which is great and having experience, et, etc. However, this user appears to have a long block log, which also consists of 2-3 month bans, and a long history of breaking the policies/guidelines. Now, the block log isn't my only rationale, considering that many constructive editors, including myself, have been foolish and have been blocked before. The issue is the quantity. I and many other constructive editors have only had one block for up to one week, he has had numerous blocks and bans for up to 3 months. I bet that he might be a good admin one day (like me, hopefully), but I think he should not be an admin [yet] and possibly wait and see if he can earn some more trust back from the community. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 21:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

   I don't know why you would link those two pages here. They are meant to protect new users from having to go through a brutal beating in an RfA. They don't apply to Piotrus. If they did, this RfA would already have been closed. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   I removed the two links. However, the point does not really change much, which is that he should wait and see if he can earn back some community trust. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 22:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Striking my Vote, while I "research"

10. Neutral from Oppose, unnecessary to have piled on. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
11. Neutral I moved here from oppose, after spending some time reading the user's talk page archives and other contributions. I retain concerns about some of the responses above, but I don't see them as so common a pattern as to warrant an oppose. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Neutral after having opposed, mostly on the basis of the candidate's responses to the earlier opposes. He has now stopped doing that ~ as i read the history he hasn't commented a vote for five days ~ and a closer reading of the comments he did make (other than those to Giano's oppose, which was probably designed to provoke such a response) leads me to think that he was not so much badgering as showing interest in the voters' concerns and attempting to improve his understanding of his own weaknesses. Not reasons for me to oppose any longer. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Neutral I don't know what to do.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
14. I'll preface my comments by saying that you've done some considerable work here valuable to the advancement of the project. Unfortunately, as is immediately evident from this RFA, it seems this editor is especially prone to controversy. I don't tend to hold previous mistakes against candidates after a significant amount of time has passed (else nobody would be able to pass RFA), but the combination of the concerns expressed in the oppose section are too much to overlook. Because of this, I find myself in the neutral section. Take care, Piotrus, and good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.