Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3

Edit count for Piotrus

Username:	Piotrus
User groups:	autoreviewer, epcampus, epinstructor, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Apr 10, 2004 17:34:12
Unique pages edited:	45,674
Average edits per page:	3.59
Live edits:	158,837
Deleted edits:	5,313
Total edits (including deleted):	164,150

Namespace Totals

Article 83020 52.32% Talk 28510 17.97% User 3999 2.52% User talk 17105 10.78% Wikipedia 11926 7.52% Wikipedia talk 6453 4.07% File 607 0.38% File talk 29 0.02% MediaWiki talk 4 0.00% Template 2109 1.33% Template talk 2043 1.29% Help 3 0.00% Help talk 6 0.00% Category 1789 1.13% Category talk 75 0.05% Portal 572 0.36% Portal talk 416 0.26% Draft 1 0.00% Education Program talk 10 0.01% Month Counts 2004/04 73 2004/05 94 2004/06 313 2004/07 230 2004/08 256 2004/09 265 2004/10 274 2004/11 589 2004/12 663 2005/01 1125 2005/02 437 2005/03 752 2005/04 869 2005/05 1143 2005/06 1286 2005/07 1545 2005/08 675 2005/09 479 2005/10 1819 2005/11 2074 2005/12 1552 2006/01 1551 2006/02 1847 2006/03 1851 2006/04 2146 2006/05 2069 2006/06 2180 2006/07 2525 2006/08 906 2006/09 1412 2006/10 1698 2006/11 2043 2006/12 1613 2007/01 1786 2007/02 2705 2007/03 2504 2007/04 2807 2007/05 1663 2007/06 1466 2007/07 3202 2007/08 1789 2007/09 2413 2007/10 2212 2007/11 2104 2007/12 2876 2008/01 1771 2008/02 2417 2008/03 2153 2008/04 2103 2008/05 1748 2008/06 1732 2008/07 1322 2008/08 1435 2008/09 1781 2008/10 1982 2008/11 1517 2008/12 1331 2009/01 1488 2009/02 1890 2009/03 2029 2009/04 1613 2009/05 1646 2009/06 1042 2009/07 1289 2009/08 840 2009/09 1009 2009/10 1420 2009/11 1849 2009/12 689 2010/01 63 2010/02 73 2010/03 311 2010/04 1082 2010/05 617 2010/06 659 2010/07 254 2010/08 1145 2010/09 607 2010/10 385 2010/11 647 2010/12 1117 2011/01 1039 2011/02 877 2011/03 1848 2011/04 783 2011/05 1413 2011/06 1859 2011/07 750 2011/08 1549 2011/09 1640 2011/10 1595 2011/11 1624 2011/12 1179 2012/01 806 2012/02 1139 2012/03 712 2012/04 1301 2012/05 2133 2012/06 1194 2012/07 808 2012/08 1172 2012/09 1269 2012/10 1679 2012/11 1404 2012/12 721 2013/01 789 2013/02 704 2013/03 1476 2013/04 1872 2013/05 2314 2013/06 1228 2013/07 1075 2013/08 1004 2013/09 1542 2013/10 1417 2013/11 1385 2013/12 543 2014/01 1493 2014/02 404 Top-edited pages Article 516 - Józef_Piłsudski 453 - Polish–Soviet_War 386 - Armia_Krajowa 351 - Polish_culture_during_World_War_II 311 - Katyn_massacre 299 - Constitution_of_May_3,_1791 297 - Soviet_invasion_of_Poland 292 - Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth 268 - Invasion_of_Poland 247 - History_of_Poland_(1945–89) Talk 311 - Armia_Krajowa 226 - Józef_Piłsudski 211 - Polish–Soviet_War 148 - Katyn_massacre 134 - Soviet_invasion_of_Poland 128 - Władysław_II_Jagiełło 123 - Invasion_of_Poland 115 - Boleslaw_I's_intervention_in_the_Kievan_succession... 114 - Vilna_offensive 110 - Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth User 1293 - Piotrus 453 - Piotrus/Sandbox/Archive 253 - Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom 172 - Piotrus/Sandbox/Notes 165 - Piotrus/Links 122 - Piotrus/Sandbox/163x 96 - Piotrus/Babel 88 - Piotrus/Sandbox/Prof 77 - Piotrus/Sandbox/Notes/SocMov 74 - AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult User talk 803 - Piotrus 278 - Halibutt 274 - Volunteer_Marek 171 - Poeticbent 152 - Irpen 132 - Renata3 127 - Nihil_novi 110 - Malik_Shabazz 102 - Appleseed 95 - Moonriddengirl Wikipedia 429 - Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes... 346 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 228 - Administrators'_noticeboard 225 - Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 209 - Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia 135 - Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop 128 - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard 123 - Village_pump_(technical) 123 - WikiProject_Poland 123 - WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Requests Wikipedia talk 1860 - WikiProject_Poland 376 - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing... 185 - Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) 171 - WikiProject_Sociology 149 - WikiProject_Military_history 122 - Identifying_reliable_sources 109 - Did_you_know 99 - Good_article_nominations 95 - Ambassadors 93 - Naming_conventions_(use_English) File 8 - Gg_first.jpg 8 - W_samo_poludnie_4_6_89-Tomasz_Sarnecki.jpg 7 - Battle_Isle_1_screenshot.png 7 - Pilsudski_in_Kostiuchnówka's_trenches.jpg 7 - Zapluty_karzel.jpg 6 - PerfekcyjnaNiedoskonalosc_cover.jpg 6 - 26PPAK_relief_Warsaw_Uprising.jpg 6 - 1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg 6 - Starcie_belwederczykow_z_kirasjerami_rosyjskimi_na... 5 - Belarus_1939_Greeting_Soviets.jpg File talk 7 - Polish-Ukrainian_and_Polish-Soviet_Wars_early_1919... 4 - Rycina_1752_Palac_Branickich.jpg 3 - Vilnius_Operation_April_1919_Przybylski.JPG 3 - Kielcepogrom.jpg 1 - Nationalities_in_Second_Polish_Republic_ca._1931.p... 1 - Poland_First_To_Fight.jpg 1 - David_Barkley.jpg 1 - Schleswig-Holstein_fires_at_Gdynia_1939.jpg 1 - Sociology_wikiproject_talk_page_views_2012.png 1 - Windows_ActiveX_security_warning_(malware).png MediaWiki talk 1 - Spam-blacklist 1 - Spam-whitelist 1 - Sitenotice 1 - Gadgets-definition Template 24 - Foreign_relations_of_Poland 23 - Polish_truces_and_peace_treaties 23 - Did_you_know 20 - Campaignbox_Polish_September_Campaign 18 - Sejms 18 - Honorverse 17 - Polish_Underground_State_sidebar 17 - History_of_Poland 14 - Did_you_know_nominations/The_ScareHouse 14 - Did_you_know_nominations/Business_tourism Template talk 1692 - Did_you_know 14 - Unreferenced 13 - Gdansk-Vote-Notice 9 - History_of_Poland 8 - The_Holocaust 7 - Age_of_Enlightenment 6 - LGBT_in_Japan 5 - WPBannerMeta 5 - ACE2010 5 - WikiProject_Poland Help 1 - Archiving_a_talk_page 1 - How_to_move_a_page 1 - Citation_tools Help talk 2 - Citation_Style_1 1 - Interlanguage_links 1 - How_to_move_a_page 1 - Interwikimedia_links 1 - IPA_for_Polish Portal 503 - Poland/New_article_announcements 12 - Poland/Selected_anniversaries/general 10 - Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board 8 - Ukraine/New_article_announcements 6 - Belarus/New_article_announcements 5 - Germany/New_article_announcements 3 - Poland/Selected_location/9 2 - Poland 2 - Poland/Selected_location/5 2 - Poland/Did_you_know Portal talk 357 - Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archi... 16 - Poland/New_article_announcements 5 - Poland 5 - Poland/Archive_1 4 - Russia 3 - Belarus 2 - Current_events 2 - Lithuania 2 - Poland/Selected_biography 2 - Poland/Selected_picture Draft 1 - Steve_Tomasula Education Program talk 2 - Hanyang_University/Collective_Intelligence_in_Prac... 1 - Hanyang_University/_English_Readings_in_Informatio... 1 - Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Globalization_(Fal... 1 - Hanyang_University/_English_Readings_in_Informatio... 1 - Hanyang_University/_English_Readings_in_Informatio... 1 - Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Globalization_(Fal... 1 - Hanyang_University/Collective_Intelligence_in_Prac... 1 - Hanyang_University/Collective_Intelligence_in_Prac... 1 - Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Globalization_(Fal... Edit count updated as of 05:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) by ///EuroCarGT 05:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by 153.19.58.76 What became of Piotrus and the EEML Piotrus's way to the EEML tag-team P iotrus has always had a very active dark side in his contributions. Since 2005, after becoming an admin, he has been working on a tag-team, secret coordination [1], a kind of international information war and abusing his admin role. As early as 2005, Piotrus was wheel-warring to get Molobo (EEML) and Halibutt unblocked.[2] He was criticized for using contributors like "pet revert warriors" and a "persistent refusal to curb disruptive editors who advance the POV he favors but instead cleverly using them as battering rams".[3] Molobo has still been protected by him for all 8 of the following years. This involves misusing his admin status to undo a consensus to permanently ban him [4]. In 2013 he and the EEML successfully lobbied against all remaining sanctions of the user [5]. The other user he unblocked, Halibutt, is no less biased. Piotrus was disruptive not just during the EEML arbitration (2009-2010) but in all the previous years after he was given admin rights. In 2005 and 2006 he caused large disruption ([6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] etc, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus). In 2007 ([12],[13],[14] etc, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus), in 2008 ([15],[16],[17],[18] etc, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2). Piotrus abused his admin tools many times in 2008 too ([19],[20],[21]). He also engaged in meatpuppetry [22] addressed in the Piotrus 2 arbitration (renamed to Eastern European disputes after interestingly many EEML members appeared to derail it). The Arbcom however trusted him blindly that he did not coordinate edit-wars and granted him one last change. For not sanctioning Piotrus despite of the obvious traces of tag-teaming, Piotrus increased his tag-teaming. He did a merger of part of his Polish tag-team into an Eastern European tag-team, known as the EEML. Still, the Arbcom cautioned Piotrus officially "to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent" as well about edit warring [23]. In the following months, his admin abuse was massive, especially admin status abuse about which he was previously warned. Part of it is described here. Piotrus ( [24]) was one of the founding members of the EEML tag-team and with Molobo ( [25]) the first Polish one. While the mailing list was technically created by Digwuren ( [26]), Piotrus played the biggest role with Digwuren. He recruited at least Biophys ( [27][28], now named 'My very best wishes'), Volunteer Marek ( [29][30][31]), Tymek ( [32]), Jacurek ( [33]) and Poeticbent ( [34]). That's all he managed to recruit during that time, and they give an idea of what nature of users he surrounds himself with closely. He only dismissed Space Cadet ( [35]) for being too inactive at that time and Loosmark ( [36]) saying he could reveal the cabal with an ill-thought comment. His EEML tag-team is similar to the CAMERA one.[37] This is just one among many issues of denied misconduct there: [38]. Piotrus says he has been uncontroversial because he received no further sanctions, nor was made a topic after the EEML arbitration. The argument is itself questionable because the main effect of EEML tag-teaming is avoiding sanctions while committing behavior for which others would get permanently banned immediately. Piotrus was never subject to any sanctions during the known EEML time. By his logic his first EEML year was practically his "most uncontroversial" year on Wikipedia. Piotrus does not tend to risk consequences for his real life with disruption and instead uses controversial contributors as rams for that, which he then defends on boards. His role and behavior is well-documented on the evidence pages of the numerous arbitrations on him and proven through his own comments in the EEML. But has he even been uncontroversial after the EEML? 2010, year of the topic ban His behavior continues in much the same way after the EEML arbitration too in 2010. In January, Piotrus already helps Poeticbent (EEML) to avoid that his self-promotional article (obvious conflict-of-interest) gets deleted in the Polish wikipedia [39]. Piotrus evades his topic ban to help Volunteer Marek (EEML; user changed his name [40]) [41]. Piotrus asks to evade his topic ban to help Biruitorul (EEML) [42]. Piotrus immediately sanction-shops at the Arbitration enforcement against Dr.Dan (revealed in the leak as a target of the EEML) because that user had described him as being "discredited" because of the EEML affair [43], really more of an understatement. Piotrus also shows persistent liking to the proposed EEML recruit and edit warrior Loosmark [44]. Piotrus evades his topic-ban again: [45]. Piotrus gives a barn-star to Volunteer Marek (EEML) [46]. Piotrus evades the topic-ban again (now at least for the third time) [47]. Piotrus evades his topic area ban again (now at least for the fourth time) to defend Nug (EEML member; a user who played a rename game [48][49]) [50]. After Exxess expressed his negative opinion of Piotrus' conduct and deleted his comment [51], Vecrumba (EEML) attacks Exxess [52] and, not getting a response, Piotrus's buddy Malik Shabazz uses his admin status to threaten Exxess [53]. This is typical behavior: When Piotrus should not seem aggressive, some buddy, often from the EEML, appears to defend Piotrus aggressively. Another example of this is Vecrumba (EEML) here in a debate about a removal of Piotrus's topic-ban [54]. Here is one good description of Piotrus [55]. Piotrus then violates his topic ban three more times (now 7th time, and these are only occasions noticed by chance) and is reported twice [56][57] (contrary to his claim of not having been subject at Arbitration Enforcement after the EEML arbitration). Despite recognizing the topic ban evasions as such, the admins have silly sympathy with Piotrus and punish the other side. Piotrus gets blocked after an 8th violation of his topic ban but he appeals and his buddies come to argue for him. He coordinated the unblock behind the scenes too.[58] Because Piotrus has been unable to abide by his topic-ban, the conclusion seems to remove it entirely in what becomes a scandalous appeal. In it, an arbitrator aggressively defends Piotrus and is revealed to have most recently come from a real-life date with him as well as that Piotrus evaded his topic ban yet again by asking for someone off-wiki to do a revert which would have been a violation of the ban (9th counted evasion, others would have been permanently banned alone after the third or fourth) [59]. Piotrus is soon back to advertising Poland [60] and baiting Lithuanians [61]. 2011, turning back the clock After the topic ban, in 2011 Piotrus lobbies for Volunteer Marek (EEML) [62] and Jacurek (EEML) [63], becomes bossy [64] and demands [65] policy changes to legalize that each user just making one revert is never counted as revert warring. This goes back to his devised system of 1-revert revert wars for his tag-team as planned in which each member reverts only once and they still win by their huge number of members; because each member only reverts a single time, none of them receives sanctions. In spite of Sandstein's objection [66], Piotrus tries to overwrite Sandstein's AE ruling with an a kind of consensus of EEML members on edit-warring at the policy page. He achieves that with Volunteer Marek (EEML) and Hoja Nasreddin (EEML, renamed user [67]).[68] Piotrus lobbies for Volunteer Marek (EEML) again [69] and asks his buddy Malik Shabazz to use his admin status for Volunteer Marek too [70]. He continues [71] his age-long campaign to forbid using the English name Cracow instead of Kraków [72]. With Vecrumba (EEML) he welcomes back Tymek (EEML) [73] and expresses his hope that Jacurek (EEML) can edit again [74]. He defends Jacurek's sock puppeting too [75]. Elsewhere Piotrus defends Volunteer Marek's chronic incivility and attacks another AE request [76] drawing an analogy to a "terrorist nuclear plot"[77]. In another ANI case he, together with many other EEML members, lobbies for sanctioning a user for Outing because the user referred to an EEML member under his former and more well-known user name [78]. Said EEML member had (then recently) changed his user name after 5 and a half years. Elsewhere, as if thinking it would look bad if Biophys (EEML) showed himself aggressive in a request to lift his own topic ban, Piotrus takes the role of the attacker.[79] He also awards Volunteer Marek (EEML) [80] and MyMoloboaccount (EEML) [81] barnstars "on behalf of Wikiproject Poland" (no one there supported barnstars for them but Piotrus believes he is the leader of it). Then he tries to prevent Jacurek (EEML) from being caught for sockpuppeting yet another time [82], but the CU is carried out and several dozens of sockpuppet accounts are discovered. Piotrus and Vecrumba (EEML) mysteriously defend Abd too, a user entirely unconnected to the Eastern European topic area [83]. In the following month, however, it is revealed that Abd had joined the EEML and that the EEML was still active [84]. For obvious reasons Abd refuses to state if Piotrus is still on the EEML. Piotrus has to defend Volunteer Marek (EEML) again yet another time [85] and aggressively so [86]. A month later he does the same and violates his interaction ban with Russavia [87]. This disruption prompts an admin to warn Piotrus that "you were in fact on the list of people I was considering for further follow-up sanctions" [88]. Piotrus continues lobbying [89] while denying an obvious interaction ban violation [90]. When a sockpuppet investigation suddenly discovers Poeticbent (EEML) to be a massive sockpuppeteer, Volunteer Marek (EEML) and Piotrus rush to his aid, alleging he was subject to "heavy harassment" without any proof and lobbying that he should only be blocked if those 20 sockpuppets were used disruptively for "malicious activities". This softness on users is not universal. He votes to re-ban someone for at least 9-19 years [91] solely for complaining about a member of the EEML and the EEML as such...[92] Another time, Pmanderson mentions the EEML negatively too [93] and criticizes its national voting bloc. Piotrus is so infuriated he sanction-shops against Pmanderson [94] dressed as an innocent question. His efforts are ignored, so he pushes for attention about his thread a second time [95]. Still, it gets ignored; as if sanction-shopping would be too obvious otherwise, Volunteer Marek (EEML) comes and "advises" him a formal request and agrees with Piotrus.[96] Still not getting his desired result after two more months, Piotrus follows this "advice", of course, and creates yet another thread [97]. In a state of impatience, he canvasses it on-wiki and only to Vecrumba (EEML) [98] and Volunteer Marek (EEML) [99]. Surprisingly this time Wikipedia is not taken in by it. Piotrus ends the year with defending further sockpuppetry of Poeticbent (EEML) [100]. 2012, par for the course Few days after the beginning of 2012, Piotrus has to defend Volunteer Marek (EEML) again [101]. Elsewhere he tries to convince a user that achieving a "good-editing atmosphere" requires this user to defend the sockpuppetry of Poeticbent (EEML) [102] and pretends to be a neutral mediator between Volunteer Marek (EEML) and the user. Unsurprisingly, he takes Volunteer Marek's side at the end [103] but without admin status this makes him look even more ridiculous. Piotrus joins a move request started by Volunteer Marek (EEML) of a Lithuanian-related article. There, he falsely claims the Polish name has more Google-book-hits [104] although Volunteer Marek has compared the Polish name without quotation marks versus the Lithuanian in quotation marks, manipulating the results that would otherwise have favored sharply the Lithuanian term (to make it less obvious VM only uses the quotation mark at the beginning of the term because to Google it's the same). Another time, Piotrus arrives late to the administrator noticeboard to say "the issue is closed" about personal attacks by Volunteer Marek (EEML) and orders in a bossy voice that editors be not discussed. Still, he cannot prevent another warning for personal attacks for VM [105]. He also lobbies for unblocking the same person in whose defense VM had employed incivility [106]. Elsewhere Piotrus continues his 2007 campaign [107] for overemphasizing that 2.5% of the troops in the Battle in Berlin were Polish [108], subsequently seconded by MyMoloboaccount (EEML). In the same matter, he violates WP:Canvassing (votestacking) by only posting it to a Polish audience [109], although the article was only marked on the discussion page as in the scope of "Military history WikiProject" and "WikiProject Germany" (he posts the message to neither board). Piotrus then canvasses it to a good Polish friend of him too, Halibutt [110]. Piotrus gets blocked on Wikimedia Commons for his continued spamming of useless images [111]. His reaction is not like a normal decent user would do, a formal unblock request. Instead, he continues his back-channeling, for which he was infamous in his treatment of a block [112] in 2008 (an block he continues to misrepresent in his second RfA [113]). He first removes the evidence of problematic images from view (he uses an HTML code trick of inserting <!-- --> comment tags around it; this "minor edit" [114] secretly hides and has continued to hide 49 of 50 deletion notes!). Secondly, suddenly comes Volunteer Marek (EEML) to Commons and lobbies for Piotrus. VM arrives only hours later, after two weeks of not having made a single edit, and attacks the blocking admin with incivility [115]. Thirdly, he secretly canvasses to a Polish admin (or several?) [116] until he unblocks him. Another time another user refers to the EEML in an argument against Volunteer Marek (EEML), who deletes it [117]. As if being an uninvolved admin, Piotrus leaves a warning on this user's talk page about incivility [118]. What makes this more absurd is that Volunteer Marek was the uncivil user [119]. Piotrus defends Volunteer Marek, claims he is a victim of harassment and suggests removing the comments [120] (although Piotrus normally represents the opinion that comments should be removed only in extreme circumstances [121]). Piotrus even suggests banning the user who criticized VM [122]. Elsewhere, Piotrus revert wars to bait Lithuanians [123]. Piotrus answers another AN request against Volunteer Marek's edit warring with "No 3RR" and "I'd heartily recommend WP:MEDIATION" as if he was an uninvolved admin.[124] Another time, Volunteer Marek deletes well-sourced information about the problems in the early preparation of the European soccer cup in Poland [125], calls the other person an "abusive asshole" and gets reported at Wikiquette board; Piotrus appears, sees nothing wrong with Volunteer Marek's personal attack and defends him.[126] Yet another time, Volunteer Marek insults admins by calling them "morons", "clueless", "twits" [127] and "daft" [128]. This time Piotrus cannot prevent him from getting blocked. Still, Piotrus tries to get the block undone [129], calling the block a "very bad example of admin power abuse". He concludes that the admin deserves a trout as equally guilty as Volunteer Marek and that the admin needs to unblock Volunteer Marek if he wants to act "like responsible adults" [130]. Another place another time, Volunteer Marek (EEML) and MyMoloboaccount (EEML) edit war and among other things VM calls a user a "shithead". So Piotrus has to defend VM again [131] (although other times he argues that civility is Wikipedia's most important policy [132]). Piotrus argues the admins should listen to an "uninvolved editor", who is in reality My very best wishes (EEML; before called Biophys [133]) and should only respond with a 1RR restriction. Another time, Piotrus joins another initiative of VM [134]. In revenge for posting information against Volunteer Marek (EEML) and his tag-teaming [135] (against which Piotrus of course lobbied), Piotrus sanction-shops against the initiator of the first Piotrus arbitration (2007) with a baseless [136] AE request. Another time, Piotrus shows he is still involved in the creation of pseudo-consensuses: Poeticbent (EEML) uses the support Piotrus (EEML) and My very best wishes (EEML) as authority arguments for his position [137]. Another obvious example of off-wiki communication between Piotrus (EEML) and Volunteer Marek (EEML): On another website Piotrus gets his EEML past mentioned in an argument between Piotrus and a third person (accused by VM of being the former Wikipedian Varsovian). Suddenly a new user identified as Volunteer Marek [138] arrives to defend Piotrus [139]. In response, Piotrus takes on-wiki revenge against Varsovian, although the latter had been inactive from Wikipedia since 2010, by asking for the EEML topic ban that existed for the topic that the economist article treated to be lifted, calling it a stale dispute [140]. Misleadingly he does not mention the dispute he is involved in on the Economist web page. Elsewhere, Piotrus tag-teams on DYKs: Seeing that no one comes to the review hook by Poeticbent (EEML), this time an article where Poeticbent has a conflict of interest, Piotrus does the of course positive "review" [141]. He defends the poor sources of Poeticbent on the discussion page [142] and at end of the year awards Poeticbent a barnstar [143]. Another matter: Piotrus requested page-protection only twice within the previous 2 years, both times to win national content disputes against unregistered users and without having to use the talk page ([144][145] and [146][147]). 2013 In requests for deletion his group is there for him when he needs it. In one he gets assistance from Volunteer Marek (EEML), Nug (EEML), MyMoloboaccount (EEML), Vecrumba (EEML) and Poeticbent (EEML).[148] More interesting is the appeal of sanctions of MyMoloboaccount (EEML).[149] Piotrus, of course, comes for help and so do My very best wishes (EEML), Poeticbent (EEML), Vecrumba (EEML) and Poeticbent (EEML). The group is as alive and kicking as ever. It was by the end of 2012 or early 2013 that Piotrus at least temporarily left the EEML (but not the group, which is what matters!). He was already asked in August 2012 if the EEML closed and if he left [150]. Piotrus did not deny being on the EEML (just denying that they were still problematic, offering himself wriggle room should there be a third EEML leak).[151] This makes sense because he was still on the list at least until 2011.[152] For his long-planned request for adminship 2, he considered that he needed to be able to state that he left, which does not disable him from communicating with them over different channels. In question 4 of the request for adminship [153], he denies being in the EEML but refuses to state a concrete date of departure, implies the year 2010 in brackets with a question mark, giving him infinite wriggle room in case he gets proven false. In Question 7 he can only play down but not deny other means of communication with the group and he stresses the aspect of his memory like a politician at court would do.[154] In his second RFA he remains utterly evasive in his answers to his questions, refers to his intentional misconduct as mere "errors". He refers to admin status as "mop'n'bucket", which neglects the components of power and influence adminship entails. His first support voters are Poeticbent (EEML) and Vecrumba (EEML), who claims he came because of the EEML mention, an excuse and method similar to intimidation, discouraging addressing the EEML. Vecrumba had been warned against using it [155]. In an intimating way Piotrus receives the first oppose votes by trying to discredit the users behind the messages, making allegations of bad faith, well-poisoning and with sarcasm. This approach, though field-proven by him in arbitrations, backfires and he changes his style to a theatrically friendly-voiced pestering. Biophys (EEML) votes too, using the account "My very best wishes" and phrasing his message like a neutral swayed voter, not mentioning his past or connection to Piotrus. Biophys, who was forbidden to open another account [156], has clearly found another loophole for sockpuppetry. Some accounts from or in the vicinity of the EEML (for example Sandstunk and Lothar von Richthofen) vote in support too, but as if seeing it suffers a snowball's chance in hell, his buddies mostly stay back this time. Notable is also the nomination text, endorsed by Piotrus, to start with. It is white-washing and one of the "most dishonest".[157] In 2013, Piotrus even changes a policy page after a buddy violated it to prevent him from getting sanctioned. The story is this: Volunteer Marek (EEML), yet again, is reported at Arbitration Enforcement for violating an interaction ban [158]. Piotrus tries to prevent sanctions for him by asserting that VM simply misunderstood the rules of the interaction ban and that those rules are unclear. He wants to argue that it would be unclear if an interaction ban is valid during the time when one of the two users is temporarily blocked, a question as silly as asking if an interaction ban remains valid when one of the users has clearly gone sleeping. So he adds the obvious remark directly into the policy as if to point out (WP:POINT) that it was previously not obvious.[159] If accepted as a new addition, it could prevent sanctions for his EEML buddy because it would be hard to sanction anyone for violating a rule that was created after the infringement had been committed. Interestingly, another user understands that there likely was a plan behind it.[160]. Piotrus starts a discussion and a user named Nug pops up (who is the twice renamed Martintg, also of the EEML) supporting the claim of Piotrus that a clarification is necessary.[161]. Naturally, later discussion and RfC conclude that a block does not invalidate interaction bans and Piotrus' sentence is removed, but the uncertainty is already enough to prevent VM from getting blocked (this is not first time of creating false disagreement over policy to help VM: [162]). Elsewhere, Piotrus takes part [163] in a reported revert war [164] to get Estlandia (the EEML breakaway) to do one more revert by removing a sentence Estlandia had re-inserted [165]. That is not the only time Piotrus participates in a revert war; for MyMoloboaccount (EEML) this can be observed too [166]. Elsewhere, although about an article completely unrelated to the agenda of Poeticbent (EEML), he appears to support Piotrus in an intent to get him the DYK [167]. This goes both ways, Piotrus also helps Poeticbent (EEML) prevent a DYK about anti-Semitism in Poland [168]. Piotrus, Poeticbent (EEML) and MyMoloboaccount (EEML) also protest against adding Polish crimes in an article about crimes in Poland, Poeticbent ranting against the "Holocaust industry"[169]. Piotrus is approached with canvassing but does not criticize it and attacks the person who pointed it out instead, threatening him with sanctions.[170],[171]. Regarding other double standards, he has a confrontation between a pro-Polish single-purpose-account [172] and an almost identical pro-Lithuanian one [173]. How would Piotrus react? Piotrus only goes after the Lithuanian [174]. A similar double standard of Piotrus is about accusations of nationalism. He accuses others of it [175] but says the usage of it for Volunteer Marek (EEML) merits sanctions.[176] In another AE request he is tactically helping Volunteer Marek (EEML) against Estlandia (former EEML member who became a critic of the EEML).[177] This is of course not the only time he does. In an ANI request against Volunteer Marek Piotrus defends Volunteer Marek again.[178] Another time Piotrus joins a revert war of Volunteer Marek (EEML) again [179]. After Volunteer Marek (EEML) is inactive for some days, Piotrus leaves him a message in Polish [180], saying "Masz tu amerykanski wyrob udajacy ciastko, przestan sie mazac i robic wikidramu, nic sie nie dzieje. Zapraszam na wakacje do Polski albo Korei :)". Content Regarding his content, he is vastly overestimated. Piotrus committed many copyvios, questionable sourcing and falsifications in the past, for example: [181]. Despite that, he always used his content as an argument to get out of anything. Almost all of his featured articles have got de-featured because the poor standards in early times for featured articles were raised. His FA count has been declining for years, now being at 6 (7 is false and includes another de-featured article). The featured articles are usually full of Polish sources making it impossible for most reviewers to read and verify, accepting them and their representation in good faith. He has not got a single article featured after the EEML arbitration in 2009 (and the last only based on a consensus of mostly his pals voting). At least one more got defeatured despite Piotrus's and Volunteer Marek's aggressive approach [182] after Nick could already expose the article without much work necessary.[183] Many of his contributions are politically-motivated. With the FAs he also wants to advertise topics he wants the world to see about like the "Katyn massacre". The same holds true for the DYK's, where he insists the world needs to know about Poland [184]. Using DYKs as that throws up negative memories of the promotional efforts for Gibraltar.[185] Behind all his content creation is a national, even military zeal: "In the end, Wikipedia is the frontline: its not easy to be here, but one's impact can be much larger than that of a civilian living behind the lines. :>"[186] In his GA's you can find exceptionally poor sourcing skills. His "Siege of Mantua (1799)" is based, except one and a half sentences, entirely on a single source.[187] On that article we can also see another problem, his continued cheating in processes such as the "WikiCup". For example, the Siege of Mantua (1799) was submitted for scoring, together with another article: [188]. They both violated the principle rule, by submitting old content for GA. "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition. If something was worked on or nominated in an early round, you may still claim points if it is recognized in a later round, but you may not claim points for articles you have not worked on during the competition."[189] However, unlike others, Piotrus submits usually articles that existed before the Cup. While the WikiCup as such is inconsequential, his readiness to game the system seen for the most trivial of reasons is impressive. On a different note, his answer to the question (Q8) about the arbitrator story of the WikiCup [190] can be disproved. What happened was that Piotrus faced a proposal to be banned for three months, but no one commented on the proposal for five days. Then an arbitrator supported the proposal [191]. This arbitrator had signed up in the WikiCup two months earlier.[192] A day after this vote to ban Piotrus, Piotrus, who had never been involved in the WikiCup before, signed up for the WikiCup too [193]. A while later, when it became clear that the arbitrator did not think of going soft on them, Piotrus tried to eliminate him from the case by back channelling him through writing emails to a clerk trying to get the arbitrator forcefully recused for a conflict of interest. Because it did not work he then contacted the arbitrator and confronted him over this alleged conflict of interest and "did not let it drop" the "the most bogus claim of COI that I've seen on my 4 years associated with the Arbitration Committee" [194] In his second RFA, Piotrus denies any wrongdoing and misrepresents it omitting for example the key fact that Piotrus joined the Cup after the arbitrator had already voted.[195] Piotrus prides himself a lot that he forces undergrad students to submit their homework to Wikipedia. These students have done a lot of copy-paste in the past and he didn't find them by checking their work. He left the verification and copy-paste checking work to the unpaid Wikipedian workers.[196][197] This irresponsible pattern is consistent and can be observed much earlier.[198] It also continues. Another recent and never found example is the insertion by a student [199], 100% the same text and easy to spot since the student readily provided the source. Piotrus even saw the edit and argues for its reinstatement without checking its content: [200] Another copy-paste by a student, overlooked by Piotrus: [201], which Piotrus should have particularly watched because the student was already warned about copy-pasting on their talk page: [202]. For his students, Piotrus earns money and he is crowdsourcing his job of checking their contributions to the unpaid Wikipedians like that. Following the years after EEML arbitration, the total number of good articles they wrote is just two and hardly convincing. Even shortly before his RfA, Piotrus behaves "somewhat aggressively" [203], canvasses against the deletion of his student's article [204], tries to restore the article opposed by everyone [205] and lobbies against the admin who deleted it.[206] His disregard for copyright continues after the RfA. In an article that readily states being a translation and whose sources are stated and not in the public domain, he not only fails to spot it but reverts against removing it.[207] Apart from not understanding or not wanting to deal with this problem, Piotrus attacks the admin who removed it for being a mess. Piotrus accuses the admin of vandalism (blanking), of having acted in a "sneaky" fashion and of "bordering on abuse" in an angry tone.[208] The copyright violations continue to this exact day. In 2010 the Durkheim article copypasted two huge paragraphs [209] (the two paragraphs of Achievements) from Britannica [210] (see its first two paragraphs). They have been reworked to avoid charges of copyright violations but the current article still includes parts, for example the first phrase "Durkheim was familiar with several foreign languages and reviewed academic papers in German, English, and Italian for the journal." is the same as Wikipedia's current "Durkheim was familiar with several foreign languages and reviewed academic papers in German, English, and Italian at length for L’Année sociologique" (a sentence which neglects to cite a source!). The second and third phrases are in Britannica "It has been noted, however, at times with disapproval and amazement by non-French social scientists, that Durkheim traveled little and that, like many French scholars and the notable British anthropologist Sir James Frazer, he never undertook any fieldwork.", being the same as Wikipedia's current "It has been noted, at times with disapproval and amazement by many social scientists, that Durkheim traveled little and that, like many French scholars of the time and the notable British anthropologist Sir James Frazer, he never undertook any fieldwork. The vast information Durkheim studied on the aboriginal tribes of Australia and New Guinea and on the Inuit was all collected by other anthropologists, travelers, or missionaries". The fourth sentence is "This was not due to provincialism or lack of attention to the concrete." and Wikipedia's follow-up sentence is exactly the same, too. In their entirety, the exact same two paragraphs remain in the article. Someone points it out [211] but today Piotrus quickly removes the warning note [212]. While Piotrus did not add them, he can also be held responsible for the copyright violations and the deletion seen as an attempt to hide. This article is listed as one of Piotrus's good articles. Conclusion Piotrus started very soon after acquiring admin status the misuse of the tools. In 2006 he was already a step away from losing them but he knew the system enough to know the border, again in 2008 he came close to losing them but he triumphed over the system again. Shortly before 2010 thanks to the leak he finally did lose them because the system had the most unlikely help of the leak. Following the EEML block, he committed a ton of topic ban violations (at least 9 evasions) in little time until the Arbcom dubiously decided it would be good to remove the ban instead of indefinitely blocking Piotrus. Piotrus then just continued his strategy of using editors as rams and, for example, he had to lobby in at least 17 different cases (see sections above) against sanctions for Volunteer Marek (EEML). This was an element of the EEML tag-teaming, where Piotrus was scolded for defending him as a "long-term edit-warring POV buddy" [213]. There is much emphasis here on his continued lobbying for him but it is a good example because Volunteer Marek gets reported so often. If his other helpers do, Piotrus does the same, but it is just that they do less frequently. As said, Piotrus was already found six years ago with a "persistent refusal to curb disruptive editors who advance the POV he favors but instead cleverly using them as battering rams". In 2010 his method became known as the "wheedling tone (which he can employ on behalf of allies, however egregious their shortcomings)".[214] In a sarcastic way, Piotrus compared himself to Sauron in the second RfA. However, in a way he fits the role of Saruman better, whose persuasiveness convinced the Ents to let him go after the big showdown in the books. Next thing he did, nevertheless, was invade the Shire, something that did not make it to the movies, which prefer a clean break and an immediate happy ending after the showdown. Perhaps this was also expected from the EEML arbitration. Why should he change if the Wikipedia system does not get any smarter? From an obvious desire to decorate himself and be able to use the admin status as what he called his protection from sanctions in the leaked files, it is unlikely he will stop pestering Wikipedia with requests for adminship. This analysis has treated each year to debunk the myth of the clean Piotrus who just made a few mistakes, a myth created by his buddies, wannabe buddies and mostly by him himself, despite having been abusive in 8 of his 9 years (see sections above, granting him 2004 as more or less uncontroversial). In short, Piotrus has been the worst admin the Eastern European topic area ever saw and also its worst user taken into account his underhand recruitment, maintenance and guidance of politically-driven troublemakers. Piotrus, who claims to have come clean, denies any misconduct, referring to his group as "hardly guilty of anything other than having made some cunning enemies online" and reveals having tried to get Wikileaks to delete the evidence on him.[215] A fundamental problem is that nobody takes responsibility for Piotrus and because of this nobody has been held responsible. Some people unrealistically believe that a system that has been found inadequate to deal with him before the leak should magically be able to deal with him after the leak without either making fundamental changes to the system or tasking people for observing and controlling him. Just waiting for leaks and overlooking the obvious traces of a continuation is not helping at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.58.76 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Canvassing 50+ WikiLove messages in the last 24 hours (9/10 February 2014; especially 10 February, around 16h)→ [216] During an ongoing RFA - this might look like a subtle form of canvassing?! --IIIraute (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) So I aint the only one to think it's pretty odd!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC) It's not subtle, it's blatant. Was just about to ask a follow up to my Q7 when I saw this. Leaky Caldron 20:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Hmmm, did I mention RfA in them? I believe I didn't...? Anyway, the stats above show that I've left 17105 user talk page messages in this project, 50 a day is not unusual to me. Many of today's messages come from my regular Monday weekly review of User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult; I habitually leave dozens of messages each Monday. This week I didn't have to leave almost any prods (there are weeks I have to leave dozens on Monday...), and as I felt extra good today I decided to spread some additional overdue happiness to the hard working DYK admins and few others. I recommend you try it out. IIIraute, I believe you have never given a wikilove message before - go on, saying good things about others, assuming goof faith, and practicing Wikipedia:WikiLove in general is a very healthy attitude, recommended by one of my favorite WikiProjects, the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign. Now, I cannot defend against bad faith interpretation that my regular edits are some form of "subtle canvassing", how could I prove otherwise? My messages don't mention nor do they link this RfA, so no, I don't see what's the problem with me sending them out. Few days ago my name was on a mass delivery WikiProject Poland newsletter, was it a subtle form of pre-campaigning, too? A some GF, pretty please. I'll, however, say this: spreading happiness to other Wikipedians is much, much more important to me than passing this vote. If in order to pass (or to gain a few votes) I'd be required not to tell others they are doing good job, and thank them for their contributions, so be it. I consider passing this RfA a much less important item in the grand scheme of things than ensuring a number of hard working Wikipedians get their long deserved thank you; if I can motivate only a few people to reconsider leaving, or increase their activity, then I'd have done much more than I every could with the tools. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC) WP:AGF isn't a noose. Nudging 50 people the day after you RfA (with a total 9 in December & January, AFAICT) can be regarded by anyone as anything, including encouraging people to see what you are up to via your recent contributions. Leaky Caldron 21:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. Mind you, I did five edits to RfA page, and about one hundred fifty in the last two days or so, so my contribs shouldn't be that blatantly self-advertising, I'd hope. Through this thread is changing this a bit, I think it's my fourth edit here... Does it mean I am abusing our discussion here to promote my candidacy? Hmmm, I can see how one could argue for that. Should I have stayed silent then? Surely no-one would treat the silence as a silent admission of guilt? Do or don't, whatever I do, I am damned, aren't I? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC) What do you say to this → [217] --IIIraute (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Nice tool. So I guess I was using WikiLove for three years now, huh? I certainly like it more and more. As I said, you should try it, too! PS. This tool doesn't account for non-WikiLove messages, I used to leave lot of traditional thanks, too. See also [218] and [219]. Hmmm, I think I often didn't leave a descriptive summary, instead of starting a new section I'd piggy back on the last one at the bottom of someone's talk page; I am not sure how to account for but I am afraid those edit summary searches will be missing a lot of my barnstar and such edits. Sorry about that, not sure how to run a query to give you the full results. PPS. I just remembered - I wrote a mini wiki essay on the importance of those kind of edits few years back. It should explain my thoughts on this further. PPPS. As well as the refs I cite there for why giving out wikilove and similar awards is a great idea: Wikimedia Strategy Taskforce for Community Health Recommendation #1: Volunteer Recognition, Positive feedback works for editing, say Wikipedia editors, SBU study finds informal awards contribute to higher Wikipedia participation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC) ...well, you certainly liked it a lot "more and more" in the last two days. --IIIraute (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)