There's quite a few there in the case. Look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#List_membership

Four of the people there ( Biophys, jacurek,Piotrus, Radeksz) are listed as parties. Poeticbent is also relevant to the case, as is the blocked Molobo whose retirement is discussed by Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella (jacurek) across the case.

In addition you have the old friend and list member Biruitorul commenting there.

And these are just the EEML members whose identity is obvious, it's quite possible there is one or two more there. 109.126.136.177 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the situation you were concerned about worked out. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of better communication and understanding, here are a few questions and suggestions for you:

1. Durham's report said the Steele dossier may have been infected by Russian disinformation. Does that mean it was infected with such disinfo? Was he telling us anything we didn't already know?
2. Senator Graham said "the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting." Does that mean the allegations are false? Does that mean none of the allegations have been corroborated?
3. When a new source says something about some aspect of the dossier, does that mean that what all previous RS have said on that topic are automatically outdated or were wrong?

Here are two suggestions:

1. Be very specific every single time in discussions. Hyperbole doesn't help.
2. Now look at each of the allegations we mention (which are only the ones mentioned in RS) and try to classify them (OR is allowed here) into groups of corroborated, partially corroborated, not corroborated, doubtful, and false. Feel free to create other, more nuanced, categories. Then we can discuss them.

I look forward to hearing your take on this. Ping me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No response? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]