QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:05pm)
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?
Alright wrt to Guesswork.
Any properly sourced material's fine in the article. Hiding the Nazi past of the commission members as some editors have been trying to do for quite some time (going as far as calling them "respected historians") is not. Come on, you know the POV pushers are more sophisticated these days - it's not some 15 year old kid putting obvious junk into the article. The tactics are more developed.
BTW, the commission's numbers are basically an upper bound. As far as I'm aware there's no higher ones out there.
Thanks to whoever did the grammar and punctuation fixes.
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:38pm)
Well I was going to be nice and hope this thread would die so you would only have to fight the issue out on WP where there is a greater assumption of good faith required, but, here are the subject lines I took to indicate as targeting against the arbs and arb candidates per your post #182 permission:
Umm, making hit and run accusations is not "being nice". Can you please explain how any of these lines or emails "target" arbs or anybody else for that matter?
Like this one for example:
[Fwd: [WPM] Manning vanishing?]‎ - Original Message Subject: [WPM] Manning vanishing?
...????????????
Or this one:
[The Committee can be nice‎ - [name removed] wrote: > NYBrada. Wyslalem mejla do kazdego z supporta poza FloNight. Ciekawe, czy …]
(Apparently now you can speak Polish again)
This doesn't just take bad faith; it takes an inability to read combined with outright malice