Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader

message: Archives
----
# 13 June 2006 – 20 June 2006
# 
#
: This is the second part of an ongoing mediation cabal discussion.  To see the first part, please review /Archive 1/, thanks.  --Elonka 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

message: It would appear that some people prefer "arguments" like this (see the last green edit) instead of engaging in civil debates. Perhaps such behaviour should be noted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very happy with that edit, and there is nothing wrong with it. Comments removed; see this diff if needed Keitei (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you offend me there even though I agreed with you and disagreed with Piotrus there? //Halibutt 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment removed; see this diff if needed Keitei (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncivility

message: * Halibutt : 11:57, 14 April 2006
* Halibutt : 21:53, 23 May 2006
* Halibutt : 00:17, 26 May 2006 
* Halibutt : 03:04, 27 May 2006 
* Halibutt : 23:06, 30 May 2006 
* Piotrus : The "We are a Polish cabal" banner
** Date?
*** June 3.  The big colorful box that you re-added after I'd removed it from the top of the page. --Elonka 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_6]] 

message: * Piotrus : 15:51, 23 May 2006
** I don't see what's offensive here, please elaborate. On the other hand, I'd like you to consider the removal of you post from 16:52, 25 May 2006 (I'd remove my reply to it then).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary]]

message: * Elonka : 21:06, 17 May 2006
* Piotrus : 02:56, 18 May 2006
** If you remove your post from 21:06, 17 May 200
*** Agreed.
* Piotrus : 03:37, 6 June 2006
**If you remove the following part of your previous post: "To those who have been moving articles to Polish names without consensus: It is time to stop. The best way to handle things would be to voluntarily admit that this was inappropriate, and help with fixing things. If necessary though, we will just go article by article and prove that there is consensus to move the articles back to their English-language names."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:List of Polish monarchs]]

message: * Elonka : 19:37, 6 June 2006
* Halibutt : 20:13, 6 June 2006
* Piotrus : 23:02, 6 June 2006
** If you convince Calgacius to remove his posts from 20:00, 6 June 2006 and 23:20, 6 June 2006
*** I have no control over Calgacus. If you want him to remove his posts, that's something that you need to address with him, not with me.  However, I am willing to withdraw my request that you remove this post, if you will agree to removal of your post at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs, 6 June, 03:37. --Elonka 20:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)]]

message: As was pointed out at the Administrators' Noticeboard today, there has indeed been vote-stacking on Poland-related articles.  Specifically, the following four users have been determined, by User:Mackensen to be sockpuppets that are all being controlled by the same user:
*
*
*
*
I believe that this is hard data which further proves that there has been improper Polish POV-pushing in many votes around Wikipedia, and that each of those votes should be re-examined.  I would also point out that Admin Piotrus has frequently worked in concert with Logologist, such as on repeated occasions using his admin access to move Poland-related articles per Logologist's request, or to back up moves that Logologist had started and were then challenged by other users.  
I look forward to further comments on the matter. --Elonka 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you for pointing that out, I was just about to do  it myself. I completly agree that all the votes in whoch L. has taken part should be reexamined and if the results changed, the moves (or whatever) should be done. Nonetheless as many have pointed out I have done nothing contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia policies, all the moves but one were done with majority's consensus, and the one was the first time L. tricked me by saying there was a consensus when there was none. In essence I am as a victim of L. trickery as anybody, and likely even more as his actions have damaged my reputation. Still, this is but a digression to our mediation case, just going to show that you have chosen a wrong person to persecute, Elonka: I am not guilty of either abuse of admin powers of any incivility. You have succeeded in rooting out a real villain here, and I congratulate you on that.  Why won't you admit you have been mistaken about me?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry in Poland-related votes 

message: I decided to make this section to try and easily present the pattern of behavior that I have observed.  I am going to try and limit it to just admin-related actions, and not include examples of (what I perceive as) incivility or deception, since those aren't unique to admins.  --Elonka 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus' abuse of admin powers 

message: Let me adress those points. I believe that my explantion should go to show that certain users are vastly exaggerating my mistakes. Let me also note that while I have tried to avoid using my admin powerers to avoid intervening in the content disputes in articles I edit, I see nothing wrong with using them to protect them from vandalism or to do mundane non-controversial tasks, and if the latter later becomes controversial you don't expect me to predict the future, do you? Finally, let me note that I have been the admin for one and a half year now (that is for the accuastion of frequent abuse, etc.). So now let's look at my edits in detail:
* Points 1-3: protect Poland-related pages: 6 times total, counting actions at PLC for 3 instances. 4 out of 6 instances were related to protecting pages from vandalism by banned by the ArbCom for one year. Those are clear cut non-controversial edits related to dealing with vandalism. Nr 5 is protecion of Międzymorze after User:Ghirlandajo moved it to a clearly inflammatory and misleading title 'Polish imperialism'. Soon afterwards, Ghirlandajo, who has a habit of being incivl and offensive to anybody who disagrees with him was subject to RfC and warned by ArbCom to stop his personal attacks (both of which seemed not to have any impact on his behaviour). Given how common Ghirla takes parts in various reverts wars and such I don't think this protection is any more controversial then if I was a frequent editor to article on let's say GWB and then reverted and protected the page after the move to some 'GWB is a warmonger' or other title of that format. Finally, my sixth and last protection was to Władysław II Jagiełło at point where the name what is the good name issue was debated on article's talk page, User:Calgacus was apparently ready to engage in a move revert war instead of trying the talk page or WP:RM; after he moved the article twice - second time to such a name as Jogaila (Władysław II) - I have protected the page from moves until he was ready to sit down and talk. That it was protected for 3 months just testifies to how uncontroversial this protection was - surely if it was controversial the matter would have come up sooner then today. I don't recall that this protection was contested at any time and so I unprotected the article some weeks later when I saw that Calgacus is not likely to move the articles by himself (and honestly I forgot abuout the protection as nobody remined me of it, I guess I could have unprotected the article earlier - if anybody cared enough to remind me about it. Nobody did.). Thereofe when we look at my usage of protect/unprotect tool we see that I have used it 6 times in 15 months, with only one protect being possibly controversial - and even that was 'possibly' only and was not brought up until now in any discussion I am aware of.
* Point 4: As I have discussed this several times on this page and few times on other places, I have simply reverted the series of moves done during discussion (and I believe eveon one RM) on various pages, where the users doing the moves did not bother to even fix the double redirect. When they did not reply to me, I had the choice of fixing all the double redirects or reverting the moves. Given that their moves were controversial and they did not seemed to care about double redirects (which in some cases affected all links to the moved articles), I simply reverted their moves. I see nothing controversial about this action, although next time I will ask some other admin to do it, although I don't look forward to wasting other admin's time with something I can well do myself. Because those users have moved about 20 articles, this move/delete indeed takes quite a lot of my move/delete page, but considering this was done once in my 1,5 career I don't see that if forms a pattern - and besides, I stand by the view that it was not controversial in the first place.
* Point 5: First, let's look at Halibutt. He was blocked twice and unblocked by three admins. I was not involved in the first instance for which the blocking admin admited it was a partial mistake, and in the second instance the issue was debated on 3RR page, as it involved various issues like Gdansk Vote and POINT. At first I believed that the blocking admin was unaware of how Gdansk Vote gives some people immunity from 3RR. After we went into it in details I agreed that in that case it is more of a WP:POINT case and the block was reinstanted. I don't see that such discussion constitutes any ground for me abusing my powers, as I believed in good faith that the block was an error due to little known exception provision in GV. As for Molobo, as one can cleary see in the block/unblock log, I unblocked him on 4 occasions, on each of those my reasoning was not contested by the admins involved in the block. On the contrary, unproper admin behaviour was evident in the action of the blocking admins, who where engaged in the content dispute with Molobo and blocked him not for a 3RR but in the first 2 cases for a very general 'disruption of Wikipedia' (read: disagreeing with them in content dispute) and in the 3rd case the block didn't even give a reason (block 'to have time to review Wikipedia policies' is one of the lamest excuses for blocking someone I have seen). I don't recall very well the details of my 4th unblock of Molobo but as you can see it was not contested - IIRC it was an error in reporting a 2RR as a 3RR. As an ending note, the count of my use of block/unblock tool shows that I use it in 80% to block vandals, and that I do a controversial unblock every 3 months, with none in the past 7 months.
Therefore if this is all evidence you can bring I think it is clear I am not guilty and that any accusation of me abusing my admin powers with some 'threatening pattern' is slander and I deserve an apology for it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response by Piotrus 

message: From my experiences, I would say that one of problems is that any person with a nationality comes from the usages of that language and culture. It is not necessarily bad faith, at least when the person keeps it in check and does not push blindly. But it tends to mean that the usages, the familiar terms used in that culture and language are coming to subvert English. Of course, one can say that sometimes English usage itself is not fsir. Certainly many English usages were developed from English POV: British princesses married abroad suddenly are not necessarily first name + England, or something corresponding, here, but they may be first name + married title, even in case where our naming convention clearly requires to use pre-marital country designation and forbids use of married titles/names (witness Sophia of Hanover, a married country designation, when fairly she should be at Sophia of the Palatinate or something corresponding). English usage does not treat always others fairly. And the reason the majority cites when pushing that POV to us others is "common English usage". BUT, the same happens all the time by editors from othr than Anglophone cultures: a Swede is often a bit more familiar with using surnames for royals, because that happens in their languag (kings Vasa, Bernadotte, Bonde, "av Hessen", Holstein-Gottorp; they had several kings who actually had a surname, a rather rare thing in royalty circles). I believe, upon my experiences, that the Polish culture has more tendency to use nicknames in conjunctions with all sorts of monarchs. It somehow comes through from several edits, moves and opinions of several Poles here. But it should be clear to those people that it i mostly an un-English custom, and therefore should be kept in check. Additionally, we have the WP requirement of NPOV - and if I have understood some writings correctly, endorsing nicknames may easily be POV of some historical camp. I certainly would not like to endorse that a certain king was "the Sleazy", another "the Bad", "the Simpleton", whereas one was "the Great", "the Good", "the Brave". I believe there are several good reasons behind the naming convention of using firstname + regnal number + of + country of each and any monarch. Because that pushes much less POV than endorsing perceptions what were personal characteristics of the individuals in question. But also because that is the usual English way. Perhaps those centuries of impassionateness has developed English to avoid non-systematical names. I am saying that everything is presumably well if a foreigner editor keeps his/her own cukture and own language usages in check, not assuming that English shares same customs, alleviations and usages. Sadly, it seems that this case has partly sprung from not being able to keep in check those usages familiar to Poles from Polish usage, but having actually pushed them over English~usages and our manual of style. Marrtel 08:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In good faith, if I am may add. Your arguments against using the alternative naming scheme for Polish monarchs are pretty good, I'd recommend you post them here. It would be likely wasted here, as the naming of Polish monarchs is mostly off-topic issue we are discussing here (this mediation is about the behaviour of certain users).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Polish monarchs naming 

message: This is a big mess :] but you knew that already.
I think that Piotrus is doing understandable acts in a less than friendly manner. He may get defensive when people react to the way he does things. I think that at least with Poland-related things, he should make an effort to be nicer and more transparent. A little more discussion here, a little more civility there. As for what he should apologize for, I don't think it's the acts themselves, but the way he said things. Snubbing a few people here and there makes enemies eventually. As long as he doesn't repeat the said offensive, generally unwise actions (unilateral protection, unilateral page moves cleanup, and offensive unblocking), I don't believe that he should be desysoped. Hopefully these are, as he says, just human error. Should he repeat, I'd be concerned.
I respect that Elonka is trying to understand both sides of the debate. I think that she has a hard time trusting Piotrus' intentions and probably has good reason. I think that their personalities clash quite a bit at times, which makes it more difficult to compromise. I understand that the track record is not so good. Perhaps in future discussion, she can try not to jump to conclusions about intention, while he is trying to be nicer. I don't know if that'll negate the personality differences, but it'd be a step in the right direction. I could suggest that you avoid each other, but that can be more difficult to orchestrate and leaves bad feeling. I think that Elonka is right to object to some of Piotrus' actions; even if he wasn't wrong, voicing concern and discussing prevents either widespread bad feeling or doing nothing when he is very wrong.
I think in conclusion, it'd be best to take into account the differences, forgive all of what's happened, and move on. If something of the sort happens again, I'd say go straight to ArbCom and I'd help you get there. I think that if you both try to work with each other, and know that another wrong action won't be overlooked, things could move forward.
I also hope that wasn't just a rambling mess and actually makes some sort of conclusion. If not, I can get more opinions. :] If nothing really can be done through discussion, though, I will do what I can to get you an ArbCom case quickly. Anyhow, here's hoping! --Keitei (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Keitei.  Your diplomacy skills are superb, and I found your response wise, thoughtful, and tactful.  I agree with much of what you said, and thank you for offering a useful additional perspective on events.  --Elonka 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Because I like you, and would prefer to take you at your word, rather than not, I return to this very important and delicate issue brought up by Elonka. You seemed to dismiss it earlier "as a digression". There has been further inspection of correspondence between the involved parties, and I would like to ask you, if at any time, both as an administrator and a person with considerable computer skills, if you thought something was amiss? In short, if you thought something just didn't seem right? Did your invitation to the user:Mattergy, to participate in the voting on Wladyslaw Jagiello(talk archive 5), one day after you wrote to  him a Welcome to Wikipedia Greeting, seem appropriate. And although, I'm not convinced that there is a "Cabal", these concerns are hardly digressions; your thoughts on my questions, please. If true, would they suggest a cabal? And thank you, I appreciate that you and Molobo went to user:Logologist's talk page and chided him severly for his erring, but so far unrepentant and unapologetic ways. Thank goodness you didn't block him or use you powers to punish him. Dr. Dan 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if I undestand all of what you are saying, but as for Mattergy, I did not find him overly suspicious, and by 13th June when I sent him a msg he was already voted on one Polish name RM and talked on several monarchs page. Since I had him freshly on mind after welcoming him a day ago I probably noticed him on some other page and sent him an invitation to a vote his contributions would indicate he would be interrested in. Asking editors whom one think may be interested in to take part in the votes is a common practice, just as posting information about votes and other issues on noticeboards and similar sites. As for cabal, will some people just go read WP:CABAL and cabal. Either there are scores of cabals (=wikipedia organizations) on Wiki or there is none. None of which seem a problem to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inappropriate to invite people so new to our community to participate in policy discussions of this sort. New people should be acclimated to the project and our culture before they start to shape either.  There's a good reason that new people's contributions to such discussions are usually ignored, and it exposes people to unpleasantness when they have to see that. --Improv 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mattergy has been acive on Wikipedia for two months before I invited him to the voting, I'd think two months is 'old enough'. And he has already shown interest in voting and using talk pages. On the other hand, your comment should be carefuly read by some people critical of my behaviour and supporters of the 'Polish Cabal idea', who don't shy from inviting users 1 day old to support their voting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are not making much sense, Dan. As I said above, when I invited Mattergy I did not think he was a sock. PS. Note that my invitation sent to several users was only a reaction to the 'other side' in the vote sending quite a few (and as the Orionus example show, some questionable) invitations to the vote themselves.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dan, I think that neither welcoming other users not inviting them to vote does require use of any special admin powers. An administrator, when not using the admin tools are just normal wikipedians. Neutrality is expected of an administrator only when he is preforming his admin chores, otherwise everyone is allowed to be as biased as I am or even more. Hope that helps (am I a member of the cabal now, too ? ;-) --Lysytalk 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, I was hoping for an answer from you. Specifically what you meant by "the other side". Inviting people to vote is fine. Btw, I admit I was wrong, you did'nt invite the sock puppet user:Mattergy, to vote the next day, you invited him to vote minutes after "welcoming" him to WK. I'm learning to be a proficient nitpicker (wherever did I learn that from). So Piotrus, when you say that Mattergy didn't seem overly suspicious, does that mean he struck you as being a little suspicious, or not suspicious at all? Dr. Dan 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few things that should be obvious to anybody who is not nitpicking at someone's else comments to the point of WP:POINT. Number one: if I take part in a discussion, it means I am joining certain side and that there are other sides whom I don't join. Number two: administrators are perfectly allowed to chose sides, as long as they don't use their admin powers in a way that puts the non-admin users at a disadvantage. Number three: I see nothing wring with welcoming a user and giving him some additional links he may find useful, be it to a wikipedia policy, wikiproject, a vote or anything. Number four: I already told you that I did not find Mattergy suspicious, unlike some, I am not prone to paranoia and I tend to approach new users in good faith. EOT, as far as I am concerned.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your imput. I know writing this kind of edit, takes a lot of time and work. I would like to get a better response from Piotrus. Afterall, he started this aticle, or was it the proficient nitpicker, Halibutt? Dr. Dan 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What better responce would you like to get from me? Let me remind you that I started this mediation in responce to series of incivility and personal attacks against me and other Polish users by some other users. Calling somebody a 'proficient nitpicker' may be treated as an insult, btw. If you would like to have a discussion about sockpuppets of Logologist, why not talk to him? I am really not sure what your aim is, but it seems to me to be quite OT for this discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your summary is pretty good. And I certainly agree that it can be a confusing puzzle. I have one hint that may help you with understanding what makes Wikipedia different: WP:IAR. Coupled with some other policies like WP:AGF this seems to work pretty well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence taken as I basically call myself that way on my user page :) It was one of the nick-names I got while working on a number of mods for games by Paradox Entertainment, a job that involved lots of nit-picking. :) EOT //Halibutt 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sock Puppet Gate]]

message: It appears that one of the core disagreements here, is whether or not Piotrus had consensus to move articles from English titles to Polish titles.  He says he did.  I say he didn't. There's also an issue about whether it was Piotrus that was moving the articles, or whether it was other people moving them, and he was just following along and cleaning up redirects. So, let's take a look.
First, consensus:
From: Talk:List of Polish monarchs and Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01:
: Support (and proposal initiated by)  26 November 
: Support , also on 26 November  (Note: confirmed sockpuppeteer)
:Support , 18 December 
:::Oppose - , 19 December 
:::Oppose -  (aka john k), 19 December 
::: Oppose - , 21 December 
:Support , 22 December  (Note: First post on 12/12/2005, and this was only the second article she had participated in) 
::: Oppose - , 22 December 
::: Oppose - , 8 January 
::: Oppose - , 29 January 
::: Oppose - , 29 January 
::: Oppose - , 29 January 
::: Oppose - , 10 February 
::: Oppose - , 17 May 
::: Oppose - , 6 June 
::: Oppose - , 6 June 
::: Oppose - , 13 June 
===The actual moves===
There are many moves to discuss, but I am going to take two representative batches.  One set done by Piotrus on December 28, and another set done in late April / early May. --Elonka 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue of consensus 

message: There are many moves to discuss, but I am going to take two representative batches.  One set done by Piotrus on December 28, and another set done in late April / early May. --Elonka 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The actual moves

message: All of the following moves were accomplished by Piotrus in December 2005 .  Some of them required him to use his admin access to delete redirects. The cited justification is the discussion at Talk:List of Polish monarchs.  However, as of December 28, those supporting the moves were Piotrus, Logologist, Appleseed, and Khrystene.  Those opposed were Dahn, JohnK, Gabbe, and Halibutt. In other words, there was not consensus for the moves. --Elonka 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2005 page moves

message: On April 28, Shilkanni attempted to move some of the Polish monarch articles back to English names, but Piotrus engaged in a move war with her, moving articles back to Polish names, this time citing his unapproved proposal at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Polish_monarchs . It should be pointed out that at Talk:List of Polish monarchs, it was now clear that there were over twice as many people opposed to the moves, as in support. I know that Keitei wants me to try and assume good faith, but it seems a reasonable inference on my part that Piotrus was well aware that he no longer had consensus at Talk:List of Polish monarchs, which is why he decided to cite a different location for consensus this time, even though it was clearly an unapproved proposal, with no clear discussion about "should articles be moved to Polish names" anywhere in the talk page of that proposal. --Elonka 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 28, 2006 moves

message: After exchanging several emails with Elonka, and looking at this page, it appears that the issue of December moves needs to be summarized. So: I understand now that in December, the existence of consensus to mass-move pages from Polish names to English names was disputable. It seems I was acting more under WP:IAR then WP:CON. I apologize for any confusion, and will do my best to better interpret consensus in the future. I hope this clears up this matter.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think we have solved most of our issues, just one thing remains: do you still stand by your request that I should resign my adminship?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus statement regarding the moves and other issues 

message: Piotrus, thank you.   And for my part, I agree that I genuinely want both of us to be able to get past this.  
I also want to say, that I know that being an admin can often be a thankless job.  It's obvious that you care deeply about the Wikipedia project, and have put an enormous amount of energy into many many articles.  For that, you should be commended.  I also believe that in general, you are a very civil, constructive, and hard-working editor. I think that you usually use your administrator tools responsibly, and I apologize if any of my comments made it look like I thought you were always misusing admin access, since that was not my intention.
I would also like to say, in regards to some comments that you received from other Wikipedia editors about recent conflicts, that I found some of their comments to be occasionally inappropriate, uncivil, unfair, and at times downright cruel.  Please rest assured that I do not in any way support such incivility, and for what it's worth, I apologize, on behalf of the community, for any emotional pain that those attacks caused.  I also apologize to you for any comments which I have made, which you found hurtful.  It was not my goal to cause you pain, but simply to speak up and indicate that I had concerns about some recent actions.
Ultimately, I believe that both of us share a common goal, which is the improvement of Wikipedia. I also believe that at times, conflict can be a useful thing, as long as it is done in a constructive and good faith way.  There is a subtle difference in English, between the words "group", and "team", with the difference being how well that the individuals of each of those entities can work together towards a common goal.  What turns a group into a team?  I believe that one of the most important parts of the process, is conflict, and the individuals learning about ways to handle that conflict and move forward.  A group of people can fall apart when faced with differences of opinion, and turn towards attacking each other.  However, in a team, when conflict occurs, the individual members of the group figure out ways of working through that conflict, and they, and the team as a whole, usually come out stronger on the other side.  It is my hope that through this mediation process, that we have both learned better ways of communicating with each other, so that if conflict arises in the future, we will be better able to work through it.  In short, it is my honest desire that you and I can find ways to work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect, as co-members of the Wikipedia team.  --Elonka 20:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think we have solved most of our issues, just one thing remains: do you still stand by your request that I should resign my adminship?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: Sprawiać przyjemność ignorują ten cały numerować strony. To nigdy istniał.
(From http://www.poltran.com/pl.php4 translator)
23191Pa (chat me!) 08:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: nie ma żadnego cabal