| Revision as of 15:49, 27 June 2007 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits Heh← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:14, 27 June 2007 edit undoRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators28,309 edits JzG's evidenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :Probably something of a lost cause at this point; and it's not like there's that much actual evidence in this case anyways. ;-) ] 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | :Probably something of a lost cause at this point; and it's not like there's that much actual evidence in this case anyways. ;-) ] 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == JzG's evidence == | |||
| I am hoping that JzG means "'''this''' policy" in his statement instead of "'''a'''policy here. Blocking IPs of editors for failing to follow MOST policies would indeed be inappropriate - as far as I can tell, this is the only policy that permits blocking of IPs instead of the editors themselves. ] 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:14, 27 June 2007
Clerks: do we generally allow non-evidence on the evidence page, or do we ask it be removed? There are a lot of statements here that are either interpretations of policy or conclusions of some sort or another. --jpgordon 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Probably something of a lost cause at this point; and it's not like there's that much actual evidence in this case anyways. ;-) Kirill 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
JzG's evidence
I am hoping that JzG means "this policy" in his statement instead of "apolicy here. Blocking IPs of editors for failing to follow MOST policies would indeed be inappropriate - as far as I can tell, this is the only policy that permits blocking of IPs instead of the editors themselves. Risker 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)