Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | CharlotteWebb Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:14, 27 June 2007 editRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators28,295 edits JzG's evidence: fix quote← Previous edit Revision as of 21:18, 27 June 2007 edit undoChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits JzG's evidence: - interesting pointNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:


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) 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)

:It raises an interesting question - is it acceptable to ban editors by blocking their IP addresses while leaving their accounts unblocked? I'd think not, but it doesn't seem to be written down anywhere... -- ] 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:18, 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 "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. Risker 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It raises an interesting question - is it acceptable to ban editors by blocking their IP addresses while leaving their accounts unblocked? I'd think not, but it doesn't seem to be written down anywhere... -- ChrisO 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)