Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3

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

Piotrus

Final (35/43/10); ended 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate v/r - TP 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Piotrus (talk · contribs) – Piotrus joined Wikipedia in April 2004. He is an important content contributor who has made nearly 159,000 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. He voluntarily gave up the bit in November 2009 during ArbCom's Eastern European mailing list case.[1]

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. He has published several peer-reviewed papers about the Wikipedia community, and 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 four years has been uncontroversial, and that period represents as long a period of quality editing as many new administrators have. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Co-nomination: Piotrus is a strong candidate and respected contributor of an impressive amount of quality content. I echo the comments of admin Malik Shabazz, above. Piotrus has helped improve twenty-two (22) articles to Featured Article quality, fifty-five (55) articles to Good Article quality, and five-hundred-and-eighty-two (582) articles to DYK. His contributions are vast and varied, including not just quality improvement projects in article space but also contributions to the subject of understanding Wikipedia itself from a scholarly academic level. Piotrus would be a most helpful and useful member of the admin team. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

c) since during my previous RfA I was criticized by some for responding in to comments in the support and oppose vote section, I apologize in advance but I will limit my responses on this page to this "Questions for the candidate" section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:04, 8 February 2014 (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: For years now I had my sight on the 160,000 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 ex here), 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. Some examples of when I had to take an admin's time with uncontroversial mop'n'bucket stuff I could've easily done myself are: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

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), and I made it to the finals of 2013 WikiCup; I have uploaded thousands of images to Commons; I do some occasional category cleanup; I supervise several WikiProjects (Poland, Sociology); I regularly contribute to Signpost's monthly Wikimedia Research Newsletter; I research and publish academic papers about Wikipedia; I am one of the oldest Wikipedia:Ambassadors and I teach with Wikipedia. There's more, but let's just say that I am a Wikipedioholic with many hats, and I am proud of all of them.

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 half a decade ago 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 (including withdrawing from the EEML listerv shortly afterward). 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 three years ago (February 2011). Since the case ended, 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 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 with and understand others 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.

Additional question from Walkee

4. You wrote as answer to question 3: "in late 2009 I was stressed enough to make some rather significant errors in my judgement" and "Yet as soon as the case started, I recognized my errors". So you suggest the year of EEML plotting was just a mistake (not intentional) because of stress and that it only happened in the end of 2009 (at the time of the arbitration). In reality, the ArbCom has concluded unanimously that you were aware you were acting inappropriately (intention, not by mistake), that it involved the whole period covered by the leak (not a single occasion) and that you made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors among other things. Now tell us, how could this not be seen as an attempt by you of whitewashing?

A: I am afraid answering such a question is beyond my ability. At best, I could say that I am not married. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Fluffernutter

5. I notice that your answers to the standard questions here have been copy-and-pasted from your previous RFA. While obviously one wouldn't expect your positions and thoughts to be completely different, would you consider re-answering the questions as you would answer them de novo today, taking into consideration all that has presumably happened since May 2013?

A: Hmmm. The thing is, nothing significant has happened since; I've been acting just like I've been - writing content, not getting into any AN/I/E/etc. hotspots, and so on. The only item that comes to mind is that I am now on good terms with Giano - after the events of last RfA I have reached out to him and we buried the hatched. As trivial as this is in the greater scheme of things, I am glad that after few years and the rather spectacular meltdown last year we were able to finally patch things up and assume good faith again. It's nice to mend fences. The answers, by the way, are not just copy-and-paste, I have updated and changed a few items, through yes, they are based on last years nom, because - why shouldn't they be? To repeat myself: nothing significant has changed, other than time passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Giano doesn't seem to agree with you → User talk:Giano → [10] --IIIraute (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Stfg

6. The response to your previous RFA was clear, and now you are standing again on the same platform. What has changed since then?

A: One year has passed; another year of my uncontroversial editing and Wikipedia advocacy in a number of platforms. What has changed since? Not much overall: I still want to help out with uncontroversial admin tasks, but enough people are still concerned about a ~five year old ArbCom case to make the outcome of this RfA far from clear. It's not easy editing under the same account for ten years, there's always some skeleton in a closet to make things lively. Still, if you were to compare the distribution of votes as it stands now, it seems that for a not insignificant number of people that one year changed something, indeed. Perhaps more people have read this essay? Perhaps it helped that I have thought long and hard about helpful criticism from last year and modified my behavior accordingly? Either way, the first day of this RfA look quite differently from the last years', and I certainly appreciate this. Thank you for asking this motivating question! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

7. I think that approaching a currently neutral editor on their talk page and inviting them to consider the strong support of another editor [11] is a little unorthodox. Even though neutrally worded, it might look like a subtle form of canvassing. What do you think?

A: Hmmm, any edit I make during this week can be seen as a subtle form of canvassing, since it is increasing my visibility on this project. Since that editor already commented here, s/he is certainly aware of that RfA. And since s/he noted s/he is looking for more information (or at least this is how I read his comment), I figured telling them they can ask me anything since I do appreciate questions is a simple courtesy. I'll also leave a note on your talk page to inform you I left a reply here, something along the lines "thank you for leaving a question at my RfA, you have a reply there" (for big discussions like this I think it is more efficient than ECHO; still I realize that a similar criticism could be applied here ("he is advertising his RfA on somebody's talk page by mentioning it..."). In the end, one has to rely on good faith, otherwise any action can be seen as having a, conscious or unconscious, hidden meaning. Interestingly one editor has expressed concern here that I do not engage sufficiently with participants here; and I could interpret your comment as saying the opposite. Do or don't, be damned? I guess that's the way of RfA :) Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Pointillist

8. Have you ever edited enwiki without logging in, or logged-in to another account? If so, when did this last occur?

A:I am afraid I don't keep track of an occasional IP edit that happens when my session expires or I am using an unfamiliar computer; I do use a declared alt account User:Hanyangprofessor2 for some of my educational-related activities, or when I am editing from a classroom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from IIIraute

9. Do you want to comment on the recent evidence brought against you on this RFA's talk page? [12] & [13]--IIIraute (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean the IP rant that has been removed by MONGO and restored by you? I think we should Wikipedia:Deny recognition to it, but since you asked: I think it's a textbook example of Wikipedia:Harassment, brought fourth by an IP (I am bit disappointed, few years back I'd expect a throw-away sock at least). Reminds me a bit of the effort some fellow-minded anonymous editors put into the hate-page about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica few years back; no death threats or outing this time, though. Still, it's good to know that some troll somewhere is still wasting countless hours compiling those grievance list, rather than vandalizing articles or stalking someone who would care. Clearly, it's a proof I am doing something right :) Regarding the other diff, I replied on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

10. I noticed that the wp:Signpost has had more trouble than usual meeting its publication deadline recently. Please tell us about the work you do at the Signpost, how long you have done this, whatever you find of value. Thank you.

A:I think Signpost is feeling the same slow squeeze on the number of active editors as all WikiProjets - there are fewer and fewer Wikipedins. With regards to my contributions, I've been a regular contributor to the Wikimedia Research Newsletter, with it's monthly Signpost column. Recently I also contributed my first solo Signpost article, a book review - Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (incidentally, the book I reviewed has some very insightful comments about the RfA process...). With regards to my favorite weekly columns, I find "News and notes", "In the media" and "Discussion report" to be very valuable. The sad reality that we cannot find volunteers to regularly cover all them each week is a worrisome sign of the declining community's health, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 11 February 2014 (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.
• Edit count statistics for Piotrus (talk · contribs) can be found on the talk page. --///EuroCarGT 05:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• This candidate is a previous administrator. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. FIRRRRRST Support -- Good content contributor and seems to have learned from past mistakes. Best of luck and glad to be first . Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, as co-nom. — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. Have never interacted with him, but he seems trustworthy and willing to learn from past mistakes. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

   If this does pass, I'm sure he'll tread carefully when it comes to admin actions. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

   Support It's 2014 and the mistakes that were brought up in the previous RfA as well as this one are from quite some time ago. I strongly believe that everyone should be given another chance if they have shown vast improvement and learned from their mistakes. The editor is open to recall and ultimately his massive contributions to Wikipedia are important to recognize. Further, his need for the tools appear legitimate. Mkdw^talk 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Moved to Neutral. Rationale below. Mkdw^talk 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

5. That he has sustained his participation on Wikipedia this long is impressive, and I think he should be given another shot, all things considered. Harej (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Support aside from some mistakes in ancient past, Piotrus is an excellent editor.  Grue  10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Support He satisfies my criteria no. 1 for being an admin, content-contribution. For that only he deserves this !vote. Soham 11:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Support As per Soham. No concerns. Faizan 12:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Support I quite like 'half a decade'. He could have said a lustrum instead, too (but didn't....). Whatever you call it, it is a good time ago, and there's been a lot of good contributions here in that time. Definitely not 'not here'. Seems to have a valid reason for requesting the tools, and is subject to recall if things do go pear-shaped. Peridon (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Support based on his serious competence and long-term, proven experience in Wikipedia. Candidate is way more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than you average admin. We should value experienced editors as administrators more, instead of giving those who have contributed far more to the encyclopedia a harsher time than those relatively inexperienced newcomers who've done next to nothing to improve Wikipedia but have enough hat-collecting experience and demonstrations of sucking up behavior to be made sysops. Unlike opposers, I like his attitude towards this and his previous RFA. RFA has become a sorry process where the really good and experienced editors are belittled and get stomped on in favour of wiki-politically correct boy scouts. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Support - Based on my interactions with Piotrus, mostly related to WP:DYK, I trust this user, and I believe that he understands both his competences and his limitations. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Per my last 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" Yes he's hotheaded but a dammed good administrator. Secret ^account 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
13. Support per noms. Dedicated and experienced. Well-deserving of another chance. INeverCry 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
14. Support - The event that happened was "half a decade ago". buffbills7701 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
15. Support In my almost seven years here as admin I have seen this user at work in various capacities, both as editor and as admin. while it is true that his behavior a lustrum ago was highly inappropriate, I suggest that one should not be penalized for ever even for a misdemeanor of this gravity. He was an excellent admin, well above the average in competence, and I believe that he would be so again. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
16. Support An excellent content creator, we need more admins who do a lot of content work. He does content work in areas where there are objective standards for quality. We need more admins who do that. He is one who, having sinned and suffered exposure, will understand the force of the weapons he'll be wielding. There's a good reason cops who carry tasers are tased as part of their training and Piotrus has been tased. We need more admins who understand the feelings that the measures they inflict can evoke. He's a grownup and we need more grownup administrators (I'm not talking about chronological age here, folks, so don't yell at me, at least about that). I'll leave you with this, by Emily.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Evidently the rendering engine hates Emily Dickinson, so see the poem here instead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
17. Support If he had just started editing after the 2009 incident, the record would indicate an excellent candidate. Since 2009 has long past, I see no concerns in a second chance. I am One of Many (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
18. Strong Support (1) I've known Piotrus since I came here. Some of our interactions have been very good, some in the first few years a little less so. But he's an excellent editor, working by now in many different areas, and with many aspects of WP, and I consider him entirely reliable. To the extent he uses his admin role, it will similarly be for the better. He's one of the best people in the education program, and the admin tools are useful for anyone working extensively with classes: it can quickly end some sorts of problems before they get wider notice and affect the view people have of WP and the program. I do not think he still uses them wrongly. (2) I am really distressed at the continued opposition. I was not involved in the EEML case, though I was around at the time. As I see it, there were in general two issues: the use of an off wiki mailing list to canvass and plan coordinated editing, and political bias. I don't think it was as clear before the case as afterwards that such lists would be regarded so negatively--back in 09, there were many more quite conscious and obvious cliques here than there are now, and they were more likely to be on issues, not just personal antagonism. The people on EEML, from a variety of specific national backgrounds, to a considerable extent trying to counteract some fairly extreme bias from some individuals in one part of East Europe. The people on the list too had their various biases, but the way they used them were less harmful to WP. I can understand the reason why relatively neutral editors in this area might have felt the need to band together. I hope some of the material in the oppose section does not indicate that this problem is continuing--perhaps some of the same people are here and feel the same way, but the intensity of each side seemed to have decreased. The previous RfA showed it has not vanished, much of it was concerned with a particular individual--I would probably have advised Pietrus not to run again if he were still actively opposing, but was quite relieved that was not the case. I see the objections to various small matters as mere excuses for opposing--every active editor has made errors. That he is open to recall is the most he can do to accommodate the opposition. It is unfair and unreasonable that he should have such adversaries. (3) Some of the relatively justified opposition in the prior RfA was to the way he continued to argue with the opponents. I supported him them despite that, for it was only human to want to respond to the outrageous direct baiting he was receiving. However, responding to such did understandably affect some votes; it has similarly harmed other candidates in the past. He's not doing it now, and to oppose now because he might do that , when he clearly is not doing it, is to me a sign of truly unreasonable opposition. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
19. Cautious support. I do believe is second chances, and advise this user to focus on the positive contributions and keep away from off-site message boards in regards to Wikipedia activity. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
20. Strong support an experienced user, well-versed in different projects' rules, and also a known researcher of open collaboration Pundit|utter 11:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    Support per all of the above. I haven't read the Wikileaks stuff but his topic ban ended in 2011 and in the absence of another leak I trust him.--Razionale (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Wtf? There is no way I'm going to support him after my first time of reading through this [14] --Razionale (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

21. Support – Doesn't look like this user is going to blow away their third chance... Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
22. Support. I think he deserves this. After checking his edits he had contributed useful and good edits to pages which has helped me greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatcherStorm (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 February 2014‎ (UTC)

    ...unsigned support from a new user with 11 edits. That's really something! --IIIraute (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    Let the closing bureaucrats handle this, will you? Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    Support. We need vigorous content contributors in the admin cadre, and judging by his recent activity the level of risk is no higher than for many other admin candidates. - Pointillist (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Moving to neutral. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

23. Support, as always. EEML will always be there to beat Piotrus with, and if not, then there will be a plethora of other things. It amazes me constantly that Piotrus still has so much faith in the project after all the harsh words that hit him here. But if he doesn't deserve the broom & bucket, then we could just as well eliminate all admins altogether. //Halibutt 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    Halibutt, you are alive! Thank my lucky stars. Some of your maps need fixing or updating and I was hoping you had the original files I could use instead of hacking what is on commons. Please tell me you are willing to spend some time on this important, neglected maintenance, or at the very least, hand off the goods. Zdrufko, -- Mareklug ^talk 06:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

24. Support My sentiment is that Piotrus would be unlikely to misuse the tools or abuse the position. Piotrus has a POV....so what...we all do. His POV just happens to be under represented on en.wiki. I don't always agree with him, but I believe he is a deeply committed Wikipedian and has earned the right to have the tools restored.--MONGO 17:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
25. Support. I have not always been a big fan. But his use of the tools was judicious, and of course he is not stupid enough to misuse them in favor of Polish interests--it's not like people wouldn't notice. This RFA doesn't have a great chance of passing, but I am supporting because I am disturbed by the heavy-handedness of responses to it such as question 4. Chick Bowen 17:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    "...of course he is not stupid enough to misuse them in favor of Polish interests--it's not like people wouldn't notice." What do you mean by that? → Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3 → [15] --IIIraute (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

26. Support per nom. Consider this also as a protest against the outrageous leading question 4. --John (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    Support Mostly good impressions of the editor although we didn't tend to agree on much. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Moving to neutral

27. Support Mainly per Mkdw - dedicated to the project, well-experienced and I am prepared to grant that he has learnt from his past mistakes. Forgive and forget. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
28. Support Candidate's stated intention to emphasize backlog work makes them a net positive—just barely, despite the spam canvassing masquerading as WikiLove; its timing couldn't be worse. I may forgive, but I don't forget. Miniapolis 01:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
29. Support It's amazing how many editors continue to assume bad faith. The EEML litany is tiresome, mistakes were made on both sides during an extremely polarized time of editorial extremism and, frankly, outrageous hateful biased rhetoric being indulged and allowed to escalate instead of instigators being banned. Some have acknowledged those mistakes and now years later have long since moved on, others (including one detractor below allowed to return after off-Wiki attacks) are intent on perpetuating conflict. Piotrus has done great things with Wikipedia in academia to create the results which prove the worth of what we do here. I doubt any of his detractors have done as much. Let's move on. It's not like a gizillion editors with nothing better to do won't be stalking every action to go on the attack should Piotrus sneeze. There's less than zero chance of any abuse. Heartily support. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
30. Support - although I believe this will be a close and controversial RfA. I agree with the analysis by DGG and Miniapolis and expect that the candidate will continue to be open to admin recall. Although I appreciate the up-front way that Novickas addressed the previously antagonistic nature of their interactions with the candidate, I unfortunately did not find most of their arguments convincing. It is also unfortunate that so many relatively inactive editors and admins came out of the woodwork to !vote no in this RfA (making me wonder about off-wiki canvasing for this discussion). This candidate is an editor who has a clear use for the tools as well as knowledge and experience (including in content contribution) on how to use them. Let's give the tools back to this one. - tucoxn\^talk 03:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
31. There is this concept in criminal justice, jurisprudence, human rights, and basic government theory that is relevant here, and I wish everyone voting to oppose or to remain neutral to consider it at some length: rehabilitation. If you think Piotrus is not this base Polish Cabal personified that needs to be eradicated from the planet to make English Wiki safe for little children editing their kindergarten articles and the developers from hot places self-promoting their web businesses in mesmerizing hues (and cries) of English, you da man. Vote to support. Change your vote to support. The single ratonale: Piotrus is experienced; has a long in the tooth content profile, and we are attriting such people with our Viciousness in Overlong Jawboning on Policy, Our Seeking Retribution, Lingustic Justice, or Fixing Wiki. Yes, we are hemorrhaging these people, even. And I will be the first to remind you of my own say from such previous meta-content: When Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning on Wikipedia before the ink had dried, which means, outside the usual and accepted -- common sense would have it, necessary -- deliberate and thoughtful Wikipedia process, I wanted to have the two long in the tooth in content admins who did that to be desysopped. Glad they weren't, but hoping they will never do a two- or three-peat. Piotrus has not done anything in the same league: frankly moronic adminship in main space, consequences be damned, "bold edits" driven by unjustifiable haste. So, let Piotrus serve us as well. Memento mori. Peas. --Mareklug ^talk 06:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
32. One can be kicked for past transgressions only for so long, but after a certain while continuing with the beatings benefits no one. Plus, call me naive, but I do believe in second chances, and Piotrus is yet to get his. With that in mind, and considering his productive involvement in Wikipedia in the past years despite all the unpleasantness directed at him (some well-deserved, yet some not), I support. Needless to say, should the candidate ever find himself an active party to an scandal like EEML, he's going to lose my !vote forever.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2014; 19:07 (UTC)
33. Support I see no problem here with this user you have my support.Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
34. Support A fine contributor. I have worked with him on a number of occasions, and always found him fair, friendly and knowledgeable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
35. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Any other editor would be banned but this guy is well trained at rhetoric and always keeps being supported by his friends. Just reading the 87 quotations of Piotrus on WikiLeaks, I find it shocking that he is not perma-banned. He was needless as an admin for five years (he even said so himself) and on top of that abused his admin status all the time. Seeing him as an admin would be like seeing Lance Armstrong joining the drug-enforcement commission. --walkee^talkee 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

   The link you showed of his "admin abuse" seems even less reliable than Wikipediocracy. Plus seeing Armstrong join the drug-enforcement committee would be funny. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose – Largely per User:Walkee. I don't think he should be reinstated as an admin, in my opinion. United States Man (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Apart from the obvious, i.e. that he has controlled a ring of socks and politically motivated editors (and IMHO, still does): "The -now desysopped- administrator Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is a leading character in the united Eastern European mailing list (EEML) pressure group on Wikipedia, whose mailing list got leaked, and the factual leader of its Polish nationalist subset group."→ WikiLeaks → [16] - why would one even try to apply for adminship only a few months after the community clearly opposed the previous attempt → Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2 - the former request provides more than 66 good reasons why not to support this request. Yes, maybe he also does contribute valuable work, but as he has shown, one does not have to be an admin to do that. His conduct at the last RFA is more than enough to firmly convince me that he should not be an administrator. Again, he showed his true face, and in my opinion Piotrus is a wolf in sheep's clothing! → Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3 → [17] ---IIIraute (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose - It is not the issue from 2009 that concerns me, but the user's conduct during his last RFA and his general approach to this RFA that leads me to oppose. During his last RFA, I was concerned by an overall antagonistic approach that the user took toward those who opposed the nomination. Unfortunately, it appears that Piotrus did not learn the lesson from his 2013 RFA. Here, he says, "since during my previous RfA I was criticized by some for responding in to comments in the support and oppose vote section", he will limit his responses here. The problem with this statement is that he was not criticized for responding to comments; he was criticized for the way he responded to comments. The solution that Piotrus has come up with is not to be less antagonistic, but to eliminate the opportunity to show antagonism; while this may be good for the RFA process overall and for his chances at this RFA, it does not show that the user's overall attitude at Wikipedia has changed, and I am quite concerned that if his RFA were to succeed, we would see a level of antagonism that is inappropriate for an administrator come out after he has received the tools. I am also not amused by what seem to be subtle attempts to downplay the severity of his conduct in 2009 (e.g. noting that it happened "half a decade ago"; claiming he "recognized his errors" after the case started, when ArbCom found that he knew his actions were inappropriate). Inks.LWC (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose - not to be trusted. Even his answer to Q3 conveys an intention to mislead. "half a decade ago" sounds a long time. It is also an unusual way to express any simple, time-related period. The decision by Arbcom. was in December 2009, barely 4 years ago. OK, long enough for most sins to be forgiven, but why exaggerate to make it sound longer than it was? I cannot see this editor being able to resist the temptation to resort to old ways and I think the nomination statement in particular completely glosses over the past, extensive mal-practice admitted by this editor. No need to run the risk here. Leaky Caldron 12:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Per User:Walkee and comments by others above. Also too soon since last RfA.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose as just cant be trusted yet, and the copy-paste answer don't help neither. Good luck for the future tho. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I agree with Inks.LWC's comments above. Not every editor needs to be an administrator, and Piotrus has given plenty of reasons why he shouldn't be. Piotrus has secretly abused his tools previously and only stopped because he got caught. That kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable; it doesn't matter how much time has passed, Piotrus has not shown that this behavior isn't likely to continue, and the deceptive nature of previous actions means that "Nothing's happened since 2009" could just as easily mean "I haven't been caught since 2009", so time having passed does not cut it as an indicator for the appropriateness of being an administrator. With that said let me be clear, even without the EEML nonsense I would oppose Piotrus becoming an administrator, mostly because of his interactions with other editors and the concerns brought up at the second RfA. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose: Piotrus hasn't changed in the least following the EEML arbitration. His main use for adminship was and will be the admin status, in a direct or indirect way, in administrator discussions for accounts that he cooperates with secretly. This way Piotrus does not get his hands dirty personally. Haven't we learned anything from the WP:EEML case? Do we just excuse it as "too old" or "mistakes"? Open to recall is no guarantee at all and never helped with him in the past. It is "entirely voluntary and non-binding. That is, at any time, administrators can change their recall criteria, decline participation in the process, or disregard the outcome of recall proceedings, despite previously being open to recall." I have had little time this year but since his antagonism was a big issue last time, let's look at some new diffs. Here Piotrus shows poor judgement regarding notability, Piotrus getting quickly angry and uncivil [18] and threatens the admin with a warning [19]. He doesn't like being accused of trolling, but accuses others anyway, like someone just criticizing rightfully that Commons should not be used as Flickr [20]. For the first time I remember I saw Piotrus try to act without national favoritism, but he fails absolutely and insults them as childish and adds: "Clear? Clear." [21] He also gets uncivil when someone fails to review his article.[22]. Nanobear (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
10. oppose Fool me once.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose I came here expecting to cast an easy support vote. I've dealt with Piotrus as an editor in the past year and I thought he'd make a good admin. Then I find out why he's not an admin now. I could forgive a mistake made in a heated argument. I can't forgive a conspiratorial plot made over a long time period to operate a cabal. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
12. The end does not justify the means. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose Despite its age, the EEML issue is of sufficient gravity to undermine the trust which must be reposed in an administrator. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose. This is about as close as I will ever get to a "not now, not ever" !vote. While I can't rule out the possibility that I'll be convinced one day that EEML is in the past and that my trust is restored, that day is not today, and I really don't see when that day will be. Very possibly never. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Excellent Wikipedian. But I don't want local files deleted after they are moved to Commons. Commons is a catastrophe, run by a clique that engages in vendettas and retaliatory harassment. Images there are in bad hands and if the local file is gone, the bad hands made the final calls with no recourse... Sorry, your stated agenda puts me here. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    So are you saying that the current consensus about file transfers and alleged bad circumstances in Commons are somehow Piotrus's fault? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 07:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    I think what Carrite is saying is that the answer to question 1 doesn't show a need for the tools in a way that Carrite can support. - Aoidh (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

    Exactly. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

16. Oppose Zero trust here. This one should have never been admin... I will certainly not admit this again. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose Nothing much to add to the opposition last time out save that such a quick return to RfC is in and of itself a concern. Per Carrite and DavidLeighEllis above: excellent editor, but admins must be both competent and trustworthy. Ben MacDui 09:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose Sorry, can't support this Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose, I do sometimes find myself agreeing with the candidate, but in my view his judgement is suspect on account of accepting another invitation to create another RFA that clearly is not going to pass. There are plenty of constructive ways that Piotrus can contribute without the tools, and I suggest he stick to those. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC).
20. Oppose. We are antagonists of long standing, so I will only mention things I don’t like in his recent history. His record at nominating articles for deletion – only 54% of his last 100 noms were deleted; some were speedily kept, some merged. [23]. A snide comment at a renaming discussion. [24]. Asking another editor to do the grunt work for listing a suspected copyvio. (“I am not sure where I should report it so as usual I leave this here :>” ) [25]. Participating in slow edit wars over adding Polish names to the lead of Lithuanian village articles, when there is a simple solution – it only takes a couple of minutes to add alternate names (there have always been at least four, in my findings). [26], [27], [28], [29]. In my view, an experienced contributor who wants to be an admin and thereby set an example for other users should address straightforward problems like this one and keep the peace by doing a little work rather than by reverting. Saying “as before, I am open to recall” when the last line of his previous recall standard was the startling “I reserve the right to impose additional criteria in the future.” [30]. Implicitly agreeing with the nominator’s statement that his recent behavior has been uncontroversial, when the last RFA saw opposes based not on EEML, but on his aggressive tone when defending one of his students’ articles. Answering Q4 with “beyond my ability” and an inapplicable analogy to “have you stopped beating your wife?” – it’s possible to answer loaded questions; he’s not limited to yes or no here; admins must expect confrontational questions and need to have learned how to address them. Novickas (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Editors with a lack of trust from the community simply are not good candidates for adminship. I concur with much of the statement from User:Inks.LWC. I would encourage Piotrus to focus his efforts on contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia content where his accomplishments are most well recognized. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I also have concerns about the mailing list issue. Evasion of question 4 does not help. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose Too many long-term issues. Intothatdarkness 20:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose Due to the well doccumented past events I do not have confidence that returning the tools would be in the best interests of WP.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
25. Oppose - According to the very interesting evidence on the talk page, the candidate is still up to his ears involved in wikidrama. Besides, the candidate exhibits a terrible understanding of the English language, like adding Category:Tourism to Sikorski's tourists, and after I removed it with an explanation went on to get a third opinion, see here. Now the candidate pretends that he has no clue what "canvassing" means. I suggest the candidate get married (see Q 4) instead of trying to increase wikidrama. Kraxler (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppose damn, I was hoping to support this, as I really like the candidate's work with articles and I don't really care about issues from five years ago in an RfA; however, the issue of "canvassing" is really concerning. I'm quoting "canvassing" because, even though it's widespread, it's still subtle and discreet, bring attention to the candidate, not this RfA like canvassing usually does. With that said, the responses the candidate made at the talk page here just don't seem believable, saying 50 WikiLove messages a day isn't unusual for him - Leaky and IIIraute's arguements prove to falsify that. I have a hard time believing this surge of WikiLove messages was purely coincidental because he was feeling "extra good" (after taking some 20 opposes about previous issues and you were having a good day? Unbelievable!), so I'm regrettably opposing for now with what I know. Best of luck smithers - talk 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
27. Strong oppose a user who has abused the community's trust and demonstrated appalling judgement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Per Carrite, Kraxler and the EEML shenanigans. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
29. Oppose, sorry. I highly value, admire and appreciate your vast contributions but if --- to quote you from above --- nothing significant has changed, other than time passing since RfA2 and, by extension, EEML, then IMHO nothing should change to your permissions here, other than time passing. --Pgallert (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
30. Oppose - I could see leaving the 2009 case in the past (it was over 4 years ago, let's not forget), but their more recent actions show that their ability to deal with people who oppose them is simply inadequate for an administrator. A good content creator does not necessarily make a good admin. And then there's the suspicions of a sock/meatfarm. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

    And looking carefully at the questions, the answer to question 4 is inappropriate, and I'm rather displeased with the answer to question 5 - if you can't be bothered to write a new set of responses to the standard questions at RfA, how can anyone expect you to be bothered to check things carefully before acting? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

31. Oppose. I have spent a long time studying this RfA, and looking at various pieces of history relating to Piotrus and to related issues. I will list just a few examples of the kinds of things I found that convinced me that Piotrus should never be given the adminship back. (1) Question 7 refers to "a subtle form of canvassing", but I see nothing subtle there at all: it is blatant and obvious casnvassing. The Wikilove issue (documented at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3#Canvassing) is perhaps an less blatant job of canvassing, but it is conducted on a far larger scale. Piotrus claims that some years ago he made the "mistake" of getting involved in canvassing, but has long since learnt better. Not so. There was no "mistake", and Piotrus is still perfectly willing to use canvassing when he thinks it will serve his purpose. We should not even contemplating giving adminship to anyone who has persistently, over the course of many years, shown a willingness to make this kind of abuse, and who shows no sign of giving the practice up. (2) When confronted by the evidence of his blatant canvassing, he made totally disingenuous answers, trying to wriggle out of it by evasive answers. (For example, he tries to make out that all that has happened is that something which he has used for three years he has come to like more and more. This is not an adequate response, considering that in a 24 hour period not long after transclusion of this RfA he used Wikilove more times than in the whole of the previous two years.) We should not even contemplating giving adminship to anyone who deals with criticism and evidence of abuse in this dishonest way. (3) In his last RfA, Piotrus responded to reasoned criticism with contemptuous dismissals, bitter sarcasm, and a general battleground approach. We should not be giving adminship to anyone who exhibits such appalling lack of skill in dealing with controversy. "Oh, but that was a while ago, and he has learnt better," you may be thinking. Not so: as he himself said above, the reason why he isn't making lots of responses to critical comments on this page is that he was told last time that what he did was inadvisable, not that he understands his mistakes. An indication that he has not learnt better is given in his answer to question 9. Instead of addressing the concerns raised, he dismisses then with such unhelpful techniques as making ad hominem attacks, referring to the the editor as a "troll", dwelling on the fact that the editor has edited from an IP address, hinting that the editor is using IP sockpuppetry, but without giving any evidence, making irrelevant references to "death threats" and a "hate page" in the past on another web site (apparently in an attempt to discredit the current concerns by associating them with those other, past, issues), and so on, but he totally fails to say even a single word about the validity or otherwise of the concerns raised. This does not support the view that Piotrus now understands better than he did at the time of his past RfA how to conduct a constructive argument. (4) In answer to question 3, we read "Yet as soon as the case started, I recognized my errors and ceased any controversial activities". Not so. Long after the case had started, Piotrus was denying what had happened, twisting and wriggling to try to hide the truth, and making answers that to me read as disingenuous. In simple, plain, undiplomatic English, he lied and lied and lied again. That is not "ceas[ing] any controversial activities". We should not be giving adminship to someone who, even when he has been caught out doing devious and underhanded things, has lied about them, has later realised that it has become so blatantly obvious what was going on that even he has eventually admitted at least part of the offence, is still denying other aspects of it years later. (5) Piotrus states above "I have never in the past used the admin tools on anybody I considered involved with myself." This is copied and pasted from his previous RfA, and it was answered there. He absolutely did use admin tools in connection with editors that were involved with Piotrus, as in the case of Molobo. It is difficult to see how Piotrus could possibly view himself as having no involvement with Molobo. What is more, the admin actions he took in connection with Molobo consisted of reversing admin actions by other administrators, even to the extent of reverting in the face of coonsensus between two other administrators. It is conceivable (I do not say probable) that when Piotrus posted this at his last RfA, he had either forgotten the case, or had not thought it through, but that cannot be so now. In denying that he used the tools on an editor he was involved with, either he is being disingenuous, or else he is so unable to see the nature of what he ha done that he is not competent to be trusted with the admin tools. (6) ... and so and so on ... The plain fact of the matter is that Piotrus has shown again and again, over the course of years, that he cannot be trusted and is still showing it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
32. Per what I said last time (see oppose #40). Kurtis ^(talk) 14:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
33. Oppose. My rationale is an amalgamation of Smithers's and Pgallert's: Piotrus, there were concerns raised on your previous RFA about your behavior and your approach to other editors and to disputes. You tell us now that nothing has changed, to the point where you can't (or can't bother to) think of any possible way to answer the questions you were asked today other than exactly as you answered them a year ago. Similarly, a year ago you and I had a discussion about canvassing on your previous RFA (see oppose #14 there), and you noted that while you hadn't intended to canvass in an event around that time, you could see how you would need to be more cautious about taking actions that could bring non-neutral cross-sections of the community into a discussion. But again, it seems nothing much has changed since then: we see today that your use of wikilove while this RFA was running is questionable, and looks suspiciously like you're trying to draw attention to yourself and this RFA. Once again, it's not a clear-cut violation, but once again, it shows questionable judgment and a lack of awareness about how the community expects people to conduct themselves. Nothing has changed.

    In short, this RFA seems to be hanging its hat on "nothing has changed" as somehow being a positive thing, but as long as nothing has changed, I can't be comfortable supporting adminship. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

34. Oppose per this nice tool. Salih (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
35. Oppose. Regardless of other issues (which are of course also worth consideration), if Piotrus can't see why sending 50 wikilove messages will look like canvassing, he lacks the necessary judgement to be an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
36. No. Repeated manipulation, abuse of community trust, concerns about general behavior, blatant canvassing, and copyvio issues. Cloudchased (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
37. Oppose strongly. I don't believe I've ever interacted with Piotrus but after reading over this page, the EEML case, and the edit warring on the talkpage; I have little trust in Piotrus to use the tools. The canvassing issues are alone enough to warrant a strong oppose. Admins need to stay far away from anything that resembles canvassing, as the practice breaks the back of our consensus-based model. ThemFromSpace 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
38. Oppose per the excessive use of WikiLove in relation to the timing of this RfA (I wouldn't usually have a problem with WikiLove, but this is very fishy). Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 19:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
39. Oppose. Good editor, but a stated aim of moving material to the cesspit, run by idiots, that is Commons means I have to oppose. Sorry. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Another oppose isn't going to make a difference to the result of this RFA, but I want to specifically endorse Carrite and Black Kite's position that moving images to Commons is one of the last things we should be selecting admins to do. Robofish (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
41. Oppose. Adminship is a matter of trust. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
42. Oppose Seeing the talk page concerns, I have to add another pile-on oppose. I cannot support any candidate who uses canvassing in such a blatant manner. His defence of the same is flimsy enough for the canvassing concerns to be reinforced. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
43. Oppose Sorry, but the WikiLove messages and this happening so soon after your last RFA, especially in light of the controversies of the past shows that you are too eager to re-earn the bit. I supported you the last time, but the previous things that I have mentioned lead me to oppose your run at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1.  I'm going to be neutral. I am normally inclined to support for the experience, but someone that is willing to be enforce policies with an iron fist is clearly not fit to have those privileges. It's clear that someone that

lost the tools stands less of the chance to get them back then someone getting them for the first time — especially given the fact that those who knew him offsite will likely oppose. I don't see a reason to ban

because he does have a lot to give in terms of editing and site content, but manipulating policy to force your way is also a concern. NintendoFan (Talk, Contributions) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this to support, with advice. I wish to keep the neutral unindented with the number stricken out since I am the first to be neutral initially. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now, balancing the scale between support and oppose. It's a good idea to support an admin who has contributed a lot in improving articles and copyright. However, having the mop for the third time may be a bad idea now. Though his work may be concentrated on article improvement, there is not enough foot markings for admin-related work. You my still be a great editor, close to User:Koavf in terms of edits, but the experience needed for a admin candidate may not be enough. Neutral for now as to see whether or not contributions can say that you need a wet mop. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Neutral more of leaning towards Support, still thinking of this candidate. ///EuroCarGT 05:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral for now Although I opposed last April due to temperament concerns, that was almost a year ago. I trust the noms, and will see how the candidate responds this time. Miniapolis 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC) (moved to support)

3. Neutral. I'm concerned as many are by the EEML situation, as well as by Piotrus' response to Q3 above, which I see as going too far in editorializing what happened in EEML. For instance, "half a decade ago", while mathematically correct, is a little too creative for my tastes, and suggests a detachment with the reality of how recent that incident is in the community's collective memory, and how severe the damage to the community's trust was. In short, Piotrus' response to Q3 lacks credibility in my view, despite taking ownership of his mistakes in EEML. I disagree with Walkee's argumentative Q4, which presupposes intent is the same as knowledge, which it is not; intent requires knowledge, not the other way around. All that said, I am not opposing because I believe the number one best indicator of administrative competence is actual experience, which Piotrus has. As such, the thumb is heavily on the scale in favor of supporting for me, but my concerns are effectively counterbalancing that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I'm not going to pile on. Suffice that I opposed the previous RfA and that I feel this one comes too hard on the heels of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. I've never interacted with Piotrus, but I've seen his name around now and then since I really became active in late 2012—always in a good context—and you have to admit his productivity puts almost all of us to shame. Now that I've heard of the arbitration case and his three month ban, I'll agree he made some terrible decisions. But it has been over four years, and he's kept contributing steadily even without adminship—evidence that he's doing this for the right reasons even if he's picked horrible means in the past. Yes, I would feel even better if he got down on his knees with some heartfelt mea culpas. But I think his actions can do the talking. There has to be some point at which we give second chances; I think Piotrus has passed far beyond that point. —Neil 14:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral. It's hard to change my mind after coming out so strongly in support, but now that I've seen some of the EEML posts and other diffs posted here, I'm more torn. A lot of that evidence does seem out of date and out of context, but I do see a battleground mentality as a persistent thread. Maybe that's inevitable after years spent making good-faith edits to controversial articles; I don't know. I do know that I'd rather have admins that are more long-suffering than average, so I guess I'm neutral.—Neil 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

   It's almost entirely out of date, is one of the most POV attack sections I have ever seen on any Rfa and was put there by an IP that is likely a banned editor or simply a chicken shit that won't use their regular account...--MONGO 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, I heavily discounted it as a single-purpose IP making largely hysterical and out-of-context accusations. But a couple of the diffs did contribute to a worry I had already had about a confrontational mindset that would be out of place in an admin. It didn't weigh very heavily in my decision, so I'm amending the comment.—Neil 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

   The recent evidence is obviously not out of date, and the rest is definitely still relevant. What do you say to this → [31]?

   P.S. I am using my regular account - although I know that I will face repercussions for speaking up. I can't blame the IP for not using his/her regular account. --IIIraute (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

   I'm curious. What repercussions do you expect to face?—Neil 23:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

   I don't know yet, but I will let you know when the time comes. --IIIraute (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

   Please do.—Neil 03:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

   Would you like to be involved in this (please google) → "Wikipediametric - Encyclopedia Dramatica" ← (see answer by Piotrus, on my "Question for the candidate") Do you think that's "hysterical"? What do you think about this → [32] & [33] --IIIraute (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

6. Neutral No serious concerns but having to run for RfA three times and also the discussion on Piotrus's possible canvassing means I cannot support. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Neutral for now. Great content editor, should have been easy to support him due to our work on DYKs but I feel some extra wait time will be in everyone's favour. CrossTempleJay  → talk 11:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Neutral I'm moving here from support because I feel uneasy about the WikiLove mass messaging at such an untimely point in the RfA, as well as how the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3#Canvassing was handled. It looks like canvassing (even to me as one of your first supporters), and even if it wasn't, the response to the accusation is wikilaywering at its best; "no proof" as opposed to recognizing how it may have looked and making a statement to put those concerns at rest. Mkdw^talk 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
9. Neutral I'm moving here from support likewise. The kitten exchange on Giano's page (diff) is an example of what has made me uncomfortable. It isn't directly canvassing, but it does suggest that the answer to question 5 was over-optimistic. I wish him all the best as an editor, nevertheless. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Neutral Moved from support, per Mkdw. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (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.