QUOTE(radek @ Sat 5th December 2009, 8:49pm)
My GTalk sidebar automatically adds people that I've emailed in the past to it. Durova is not "involved" in EEML case.
Well now, there you go again. Durova is involved in
everything. If it exists on Wikipedia at all, you can bet Durova is in it up to her neck. She couldn't keep away if she wanted to.
QUOTE
Also Guesswork, you'll forgive me if from now on I'll ignore your trolling. There's enough of that at the ArbCom page which despite some very honest and good work by the clerks is pretty much an all-you-can-eat buffet for the trolls.
Please, we don't like to see the "t-word" here. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
Mr. Orange has a perfectly valid reason to believe that Eastern European WP'ers are cooperating, collaborating, and/or "colluding" if you prefer the pejorative term, on various articles - actually, I don't believe that's in dispute, is it? But once everyone accepts that there's nothing unethical about their doing this, the only question seems to be whether or not his opposition is based on principle, or rather just a kind of "sour grapes" that he can't get enough of a team together on his side to sufficiently counteract the effect.
The real test in this case, IMO, is whether or not these "EEML" folks allow the "Schieder commission" article to include material that might suggest that the number of victims was, indeed, higher than the commission's estimate. Assuming that such material is "properly sourced," yada yada yada. Do you disagree?