| Revision as of 21:18, 27 June 2007 editChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →JzG's evidence: - interesting point← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:41, 28 June 2007 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits response to Jpgordon and KirillNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| 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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | 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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ;-) ] 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) | ||
| ::My apologies for not having seen this thread earlier today. | |||
| ::There is, of course, a distinction between a "statement" and evidence. However, I don't recall any case in which material was actually moved off of the evidence page (unless it was so inappropriate that it didn't belong anywhere in the arbitration at all). It strikes me that for a clerk to go through the evidence page and say "this person's comments are evidentiary, okay ... this is evidence ... nah, this one is just opinion and invective, moved to talk" would potentially involve the clerks in a little more subjectivity than is expected of us. | |||
| ::However, the primary purpose of these pages, and of the clerks, is to be useful to the arbitrators. If any arbitrator wants a clerk to move submissions that are primarily statements rather than evidence over to the talk page, I'll be happy to do it. ] 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == JzG's evidence == | == JzG's evidence == | ||
Revision as of 02:41, 28 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)
- My apologies for not having seen this thread earlier today.
- There is, of course, a distinction between a "statement" and evidence. However, I don't recall any case in which material was actually moved off of the evidence page (unless it was so inappropriate that it didn't belong anywhere in the arbitration at all). It strikes me that for a clerk to go through the evidence page and say "this person's comments are evidentiary, okay ... this is evidence ... nah, this one is just opinion and invective, moved to talk" would potentially involve the clerks in a little more subjectivity than is expected of us.
- However, the primary purpose of these pages, and of the clerks, is to be useful to the arbitrators. If any arbitrator wants a clerk to move submissions that are primarily statements rather than evidence over to the talk page, I'll be happy to do it. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 28 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)